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:reply-to:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=hDhtadKC0Xk4/UcA
	jfPayXg3JmMduTYLuO0lYymby5l6LsOY7xMNtIzsll1sRMrwmXF6r18kUk+T65RC
	Gchn+V6WItFIP4Y/s7jH8Og+ow3bdu4dnD9NuiCtqx1GZD5OP6odIxf386IkvQs1
	ELH6kwWnOoef0FHDDXmSw2s56t4=
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:reply-to:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=iw5D1ESOcUq4Y0NxbFP54C
	a1hlo=; b=k+Jzu+ZjsDx4gYDTfTaUI9BuXkCiDg4Et/gGam41s2uFa4q5wJB9N6
	T3cn690JukDIpLgw9R4E1bN0W8CF0Y/1gQzV3EDSRQtj9dAEKj6e159fmcnkpt0G
	JNjHcXyCgD1Jzia6wAB6gaXMQZbXMKMWQK/7H+t9BR1Gb3vAJNY6A=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
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=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=EG, i686-pc-cygwin, UD:E.G, i686pccygwin
X-HELO:	mail-io0-f176.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:reply-to:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xgsHEW2DqluCdYdQXRgGnO9Gbb1K5MfESCh6sCEH9Nc=; b=fIxSDlhK52WvnpYs+RU0H9h8mAIo64rT7bmbE/cU9+ceYCBmc2+OiTYh3VJKD+x98h n4apbaY9m4mhTCvlA7H9/yx9ZCnfXGPULjP6+pA0RJs97kkQRHhBvC3fqDDBRsj/l/LF 4RvSQHWDgI932jnVvrL/r3MnjljJ69g5Ij3kBRU51Yyoi3CaznWu206MbTyNa+r64Y5u +P4atGrgqv9aom9atJGL6zkWB3BjWLesb/tFPiIKFd7KdF+Cl8aM7tbBDrgM5T3xx6Zw b49iVluoBFTG5otjMCKG+98KsZ/evr+jbJxjpyk1lt6rypP4yOdRKIPCu9tF2VCOgQ5D e5Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AMCzsaUkIrH1CkYeL+D2uNATRDJn2R9kcHNnmDmiDdF7jxfh7g1jee74 69y9MRy0mwnTZZk+hQ3OnKA+kA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source:	ABhQp+RU2r7bTyPCQVNg/MO4YywIzOTe5F7KUTI4lW2M+NQwAhUOebWlBAlVsEnHJtiOwMoDd43Hpg==
X-Received:	by 10.107.48.76 with SMTP id w73mr1821507iow.301.1508419501165; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:	Re: Which is it -pc- or -unknown-
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<b0dab24e-629a-4d23-c199-69b60a98b9ad AT gmail DOT com> <59e7e340 DOT e9099d0a DOT ecab9 DOT 127a AT mx DOT google DOT com>
From:	cyg Simple <cygsimple AT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:25:01 -0400
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:	<59e7e340.e9099d0a.ecab9.127a@mx.google.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 10/18/2017 7:26 PM, Steven Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:45:11, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> For a regex pattern you should include both.
>> I do not bore which one is built and distributed on my packages.
>>
>> E.G. on octave
>>
>> /usr/lib/octave/site/oct/i686-pc-cygwin
>> /usr/lib/octave/site/oct/x86_64-unknown-cygwin
> 
> This is certainly not right. I can understand that we will have some
> discrepancies across packages, but having a different vendor in the same
> package
> is unacceptable. It suggests that x86_64-unknown-cygwin and i686-pc-cygwin
> differ in more ways that one, which they dont. you let it slide, then
> people
> start asking:
> 

I can live with the historical i*-pc-cygwin mishap.

> - where is x86_64-pc-cygwin?

This I cannot live with and the package maintainers need to target
x86_64-unknown-cygwin instead.  GCC has a target build of
x86_64-pc-cygwin, it needs corrected!

> - where is i686-unknown-cygwin?
> 

This should never exist under the current scheme.  It should always be
i*-pc-cygwin.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -