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=hA9F
	683BjDs/IbhFthayseipwg+Wq6LvIxlsebDGER0pcYPEl2jApbspFN19ZtAkcb6G
	v1J6evKRgoTp6WOj+Ma2+OIBY3RRhPqzyqZdtMYd7NALKJ8AGsjoXxe1nSxf2615
	lclj1fu0Ql6tyAdbpLUsfDiDhtmWIQcmt/Nvs60=
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=wrM/x8zQ5k
	p5hUtybpIvt2FlMKg=; b=KR6KxqaERogn/k43s2SVvzU7EQ254ZRr2peCzPJ0zF
	DfmGUv/J2hXjxNh9zMJ7BhJQFaFEyHso94xECmNG02Imk7X46G4E+EjugSnFWKl+
	/WW+iShQn1vy500FsyWy+bPenweG7/gbgJUqcD3feHmULTjsabSWkOrQJiOeHR30
	M=
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=-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, H*M:0ac7, site, assist
X-HELO:	mx1.redhat.com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2B9F0B67A
Authentication-Results:	ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com
Authentication-Results:	ext-mx09.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 2B9F0B67A
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> <5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab AT gmail DOT com>
From:	Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID:	<e6342489-bc51-0ac7-df16-73ef8639ba91@cygwin.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:04:20 -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:	<5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab@gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

--giPeGqc0nNevb1Vh9mBkuDgJlFBL1cusB
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="5NxfagKlT27Rw5Tt9BN9R8ktR2RDUW6OA";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <e6342489-bc51-0ac7-df16-73ef8639ba91 AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Which is it -pc- or -unknown-
References: <b0dab24e-629a-4d23-c199-69b60a98b9ad AT gmail DOT com>
 <59e7e340 DOT e9099d0a DOT ecab9 DOT 127a AT mx DOT google DOT com>
 <5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab AT gmail DOT com>


--5NxfagKlT27Rw5Tt9BN9R8ktR2RDUW6OA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2017-10-19 08:25, cyg Simple wrote:
> 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-cygw=
in
>> differ in more ways that one, which they dont. you let it slide, then
>> people
>> start asking:
>>
>=20
> I can live with the historical i*-pc-cygwin mishap.
>=20
>> - where is x86_64-pc-cygwin?
>=20
> 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!

We've been building packages for 64-bit Cygwin for years now without a
problem.  Maybe you could just tell what you're trying to do and the
problem you're seeing so that we can assist you, instead of this
circular discussion of a nonexistent problem.

--=20
Yaakov


--5NxfagKlT27Rw5Tt9BN9R8ktR2RDUW6OA--

--giPeGqc0nNevb1Vh9mBkuDgJlFBL1cusB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHQEARECADQWIQRFYAu5jKh4qpenARn/IK+aZu4flAUCWei+9RYceXNlbGtvd2l0
ekBjeWd3aW4uY29tAAoJEP8gr5pm7h+U2YMAnji3zb0R9+mX5RXOx/TesutJ/KRj
AJ9vXdU+XeC1fGjLsxNjwpESTJchBg==
=EKBo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--giPeGqc0nNevb1Vh9mBkuDgJlFBL1cusB--

- Raw text -