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:reply-to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=EN0xl7uCzlLiSrd8
	LAiWdX8G2wRJHwvryhHwHu6tVBQ/ewqhQke3iRaTT6SAnhCuKM3IF7Et6uFAz6p+
	fHt4P+BDzwkW3ZYOysSZSl710G02N2uX0r+AMmq+GQLVEZI9fRr82StjvtsFyHiX
	T3jm5yPiTOoqk17plP9L7itMS8c=
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:reply-to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=HO2/ME55v0Uqltib9E1gRU
	u5Lks=; b=cPDur6oosPncqwkbVJA+98mzb9lsEvet0t932a7W3D596VVu+IFfzy
	Reb2ctk0Qk4GZpf4WVC31RX5bouMvCvXszBge18OPGKP7fGV4oYhHc4Mqo1b8OQs
	JWSMZ/UL6HRC+salHk7zxYZRQydENu7oT8muyOkiSPTOPWpDZ5m3A=
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=refusing, H*R:D*cygwin.com, products, site
X-HELO:	mail-it0-f47.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:reply-to:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q9wmseGFtlAmXVujq7GplZZSn8E9g4XA0yc0lxidYvQ=; b=fUaHBAQAHWUxI3RdkyVf06ryeNGTo+otRfhOddqQLZ+Qojqa1UlSYTfAZ7rrShdBCe OTTHMVyuOGVkbXDuP4AQKof/8/uLBY7lbnOBS+Xuoa68wsZRwCUUx9pgErm3Q4Km0J/y uB2Ou4J5afi/6MC5m96T7mbfzzeu0Sx7AQhOc0Q0FtSC5znpbqIgKE9+lv1szg8ngJJd x2+oXtYLUI0de/IU1A/6lVjwUwgI+/QprT89kIUqhT674bUXd5HRb8nEVRx1fIDhOw7s ZGy62IsGFRmNpTiOjfrmKSoYRvoTNexnn2ACCt8fJNI2JTXXpc0dZ7UkM4Z3D1RKtObI /rmw==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AMCzsaXbZ3By2HwBFZJq5R9Fru19UEFM9UrQNVMPMvuOyrKPPPQ+6DC2 VClzwYU2N+SPT/Otxp92REkz0A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source:	ABhQp+TeqVtJAn1dtq18WT/Qc2+B3+N/cmszDhIAf1zYfAwZSaeqGZCguk+IwRR719+L6lbys0/lew==
X-Received:	by 10.36.25.4 with SMTP id b4mr3008313itb.108.1508431448584; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:44:08 -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> <5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab AT gmail DOT com> <e6342489-bc51-0ac7-df16-73ef8639ba91 AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	cyg Simple <cygsimple AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID:	<bcfc8b60-f269-8647-297f-f4fa3fe58d7d@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:44:09 -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:	<e6342489-bc51-0ac7-df16-73ef8639ba91@cygwin.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 10/19/2017 11:04 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 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-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!
> 
> 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.
> 

And I've used the products for years as well, that doesn't make the
product without fallacies.  It is either that config.guess is wrong and
the guess should be x86_64-pc-cygwin or the maintainers are wrong and
should provide host/target for x86_64-unknown-cygwin.  It is that
simple.  It has nothing to do with what I was trying to do when I
discovered the issue; it is an issue.

The scenario occurred when I was trying to configure a package and that
package was refusing to accept the config.guess build triplet.  So I
decided to do

cyg=`/path/to/config.guess`; ./configure --host=$cyg --build=$cyg

The configure couldn't find x86_64-unknown-cygwin-gcc.  When I looked in
/usr/bin I found x86_64-pc-cygwin-gcc instead!!  So which is it, it
cannot be both!

-- 
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 -