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=LziD
	6tGtPKczfFWHzCNE5GB+cT+6U5t9TAwElEKhuGpFxtC/928PfgIQKKgDWkBiaHkk
	NddhpFf1t+09ZNQaYcZjRarFvPL3xS/pR3GAgXnvqvisdO+TGtfv4m7QvWtuvwJK
	jHlIOHvY86wyMg417Kl0amMnf2hh5edFDDk8iN8=
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=J4uCW4HdNW
	HHE2jN4XZ/pPbZgn8=; b=ixNz8ULoIsVDyDgEJYitODptbtoscnpjoSVgcR+MCZ
	JerAVuDu1P56KAPzgi5Dmw84wgQ2A0GZQgcH9rHqh7c/wkSZeuC2G2PLVhq63eyY
	oXrUSUYJOSntJ1iT/5SOINT1dvxF2tanph14quAYpw5q1Iik4EMIfS691j8hCo+F
	A=
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:1767, H*M:8a2f, H*M:15d7
X-HELO:	mx1.redhat.com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 61139821C7
Authentication-Results:	ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com
Authentication-Results:	ext-mx04.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 61139821C7
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> <e3abcc71-e085-4355-41de-c6ab30cc4c85 AT gmail DOT com> <8a790ade-1761-b87b-b389-5f76d147c099 AT cygwin DOT com> <217068b0-f4df-1c30-07f7-8d7cbf84a52a AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca> <f499654d-44d0-6b06-6add-ce77ad16d5f4 AT gmail DOT com>
From:	Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID:	<d4235ee2-1767-15d7-8a2f-11e93a0ecdb3@cygwin.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:35:42 -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:	<f499654d-44d0-6b06-6add-ce77ad16d5f4@gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

--bwLoXdOMoBmP0NNnFoF0Iu3AwO2QmCkxv
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="2mjkQUWNg90vJQRfVekTUsmXHICOffHku";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <d4235ee2-1767-15d7-8a2f-11e93a0ecdb3 AT cygwin DOT com>
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>
 <e3abcc71-e085-4355-41de-c6ab30cc4c85 AT gmail DOT com>
 <8a790ade-1761-b87b-b389-5f76d147c099 AT cygwin DOT com>
 <217068b0-f4df-1c30-07f7-8d7cbf84a52a AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
 <f499654d-44d0-6b06-6add-ce77ad16d5f4 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <f499654d-44d0-6b06-6add-ce77ad16d5f4 AT gmail DOT com>


--2mjkQUWNg90vJQRfVekTUsmXHICOffHku
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 is=
sues.
>>>
>>> As I have said several times, this assertion is incorrect.  You need to
>>> use the triplet which matches the toolchain with which you are building.
>>> 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 specifyin=
g -pc-
>> for consistency on Cygwin builds is a valid choice by the maintainers.
>=20
> FINE!  But config.guess should match the CHOSEN one.

Incorrect assumption.

>> Perhaps a statement on the cygwin-apps list could clarify what should be=
 done by
>> maintainers to ensure this override, and maybe retire the use of -unknow=
n- by
>> any Cygwin apps in future, with a notice to this (cygwin) list for those=
 who
>> choose to build packages from net sources.
>=20
> I don't care which is used as long as config.guess matches what is chosen.

That is not a requirement.

>> Perhaps also patches should be submitted to the config and automake main=
tainers
>> to ensure that {i*,x86_64}:CYGWIN*:*... always produce vendor -pc-. Not =
sure
>> about vendors for {amd64,powerpcle}:CYGWIN*:*... in config.guess, which =
are
>> currently also set to -unknown-.
>=20
> Exactly what I'm saying.  It needs to match what is being distributed
> just for consistency and to avoid confusion.

No patch is needed here.

--=20
Yaakov


--2mjkQUWNg90vJQRfVekTUsmXHICOffHku--

--bwLoXdOMoBmP0NNnFoF0Iu3AwO2QmCkxv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

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

iHQEARECADQWIQRFYAu5jKh4qpenARn/IK+aZu4flAUCWekMnhYceXNlbGtvd2l0
ekBjeWd3aW4uY29tAAoJEP8gr5pm7h+UbQYAnRQ0jUnikuq8tij0PKgqOMn/vRPs
AJ9G+7CNQsXH59zKwq9oYBfk/klJoQ==
=8W0E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bwLoXdOMoBmP0NNnFoF0Iu3AwO2QmCkxv--

- Raw text -