X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=QTg7 HIFiB5I5Lq0Tl3R3Oedx1NykhHRrvcS/NPPSHBs3wluqrl0/r2XC2tCh8K+REbXi T1OVIF1fp+/oNfWSOfoFfex3KGFFVYgi8KMjjsZ8x8NRTIQ5yGwbaQl8vmiP4Elx l9dXNEg6jMZKUcaActCRkaVO98BxZ9zwdd1sIN4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; s=default; bh=N/a870mgDF 7LgLvLnz0Rpbns9pE=; b=Clt78cSlOqO93nIFM7RxrJetW+YIfXSmcT6uf60Dsc G+YeBb321J7echh0j+fGY0aeGi8qYNwO5jkZIFC/vWqk/BAD5oXKEmoaT8yVUBLk SgZtfr7/eArkikO26SgYLGWOF8SmoR0TkXf+wfdfYRrG4TFgpccz6afDGzlDqZJ1 I= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:cygwin, debate, HAuthentication-Results:cygwin.com, helping X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A8BF94792 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=yselkowitz AT cygwin DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com A8BF94792 Subject: Re: Which is it -pc- or -unknown- To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <7983d97c-3c6d-e3c2-2304-9527ad4c5735 AT gmail DOT com> <59e8f0cd DOT 28279d0a DOT 292b DOT 4768 AT mx DOT google DOT com> <8a790ade-1761-b87b-b389-5f76d147c099 AT cygwin DOT com> <217068b0-f4df-1c30-07f7-8d7cbf84a52a AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca> From: Yaakov Selkowitz Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:14:36 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="j6BfwUTpTffGaMxq6TNGi7WRPC3qeHlGV" X-IsSubscribed: yes --j6BfwUTpTffGaMxq6TNGi7WRPC3qeHlGV Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="dsKRVKTEPegTihP2sbnwlSvbnrLtv56ad"; protected-headers="v1" From: Yaakov Selkowitz To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: Subject: Re: Which is it -pc- or -unknown- References: <7983d97c-3c6d-e3c2-2304-9527ad4c5735 AT gmail DOT com> <59e8f0cd DOT 28279d0a DOT 292b DOT 4768 AT mx DOT google DOT com> <8a790ade-1761-b87b-b389-5f76d147c099 AT cygwin DOT com> <217068b0-f4df-1c30-07f7-8d7cbf84a52a AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca> In-Reply-To: --dsKRVKTEPegTihP2sbnwlSvbnrLtv56ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017-10-19 16:00, cyg Simple wrote: > On 10/19/2017 4:35 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >> On 2017-10-19 15:02, cyg Simple wrote: >>> On 10/19/2017 3:54 PM, Brian Inglis wrote: >>>> On 2017-10-19 12:59, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >>>>> On 2017-10-19 13:40, cyg Simple wrote: >>>>>> x86_64-pc-cygwin is just not correct regardless of the lack of past = issues. >>>>> >>>>> As I have said several times, this assertion is incorrect. You need = to >>>>> use the triplet which matches the toolchain with which you are buildi= ng. >>>>> For example, Fedora and RHEL all use $arch-redhat-linux as their >>>>> triplet, and there is nothing wrong with that. >>>> >>>> Vendor -unknown- is just a default in various config cases, so specify= ing -pc- >>>> for consistency on Cygwin builds is a valid choice by the maintainers. >>> >>> FINE! But config.guess should match the CHOSEN one. >> >> Incorrect assumption. >=20 > You keep saying my assumption is incorrect but that isn't the case. My > assumption is based on data supplied by the configure process. Your assumption is that the default and chosen triplets must be one and the same. They are not, they need not be, and we are far from being alone in this regard. Once you accept *that*, then the rest of this will make sense. Several of us with years of experience in these matters have tried to help explain this to you. Repeatedly pointing to the same piece of "evidence" as supposed proof for your "case", as if it were up for debate, isn't helping you to understand how things actually work. This discussion would be better served by being specific about the package you are trying to build, how you are trying to build it, and the exact error message you are seeing. --=20 Yaakov --dsKRVKTEPegTihP2sbnwlSvbnrLtv56ad-- --j6BfwUTpTffGaMxq6TNGi7WRPC3qeHlGV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHQEARECADQWIQRFYAu5jKh4qpenARn/IK+aZu4flAUCWekVvBYceXNlbGtvd2l0 ekBjeWd3aW4uY29tAAoJEP8gr5pm7h+UJDkAnjn2xl6pfxOwXJBG23RqYtV8K6/b AJ920WN2izAuUEJ6W/BzDwsEsUSJ/Q== =A7FU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --j6BfwUTpTffGaMxq6TNGi7WRPC3qeHlGV--