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
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=sEQm0QtuWuZRIFc8
	zGYbl3uYbkeDZfeN2djy0n+sBtt1fThfCdAKYRehIZHeO72sPj/CviRnifPlcYZX
	jUXV+BU7mN9BbxVc7p8t8AheDPcEZu07pITMc0YCI9tO42xs99Qw5duWU3yOrMvu
	5hArH259dOmlOM7jR0uI5vg3g7o=
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
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=Tahl0YLleaxFogmWSpGHlJ
	9HNVs=; b=QR/JrGJOm0vZOqO3OXjUBnI9ogicCwRDobejbGEz8XQOs6CqZdWN7p
	Hd48t4eqxv3q2mWNZaEpr98VfTcV8bIYge66MFabrqBLbAfuLN+uhExn4WbAgFDu
	koGvMk3jKkBN7rp53MrhyLMh88cu7d/lwI0aLPM+jwJE1RFsncfcU=
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=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=EG, i686pccygwin, i686-pc-cygwin, UD:E.G
X-HELO: mail-wm0-f43.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:message-id:date         :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language         :content-transfer-encoding;        bh=Ajc1GCBYWpY4pHoZRNFcyXaJ8nCJaR1dkxoTawJ1G8M=;        b=qlRj5snKfcsWBzO9quqx5dZRfLkJpFntnHN7R2ZilUk00YGYx/losW0VHV9JFjT8Rx         b6TQ2giOH/Zm2CrS+sKj6WF+TMtfB6XzW+duJOOvRs0f6sLNcUtouto6O+GJdTZ9uAGr         xBIwfPKJW+UYeQ1wJx8xh0RM3PF9cemjVWhiCSqWr8JKa1GMJN5f62yrZK0yelm9t0mc         gvmXZC44lMIgNkGCfWoooDV1x14PIMTgS/1a42nlgnRAntdZ0MIcL2Rwj1qQ9ZJbjJS5         niEG1yH007xpiAmeCy3wuETsY/0Z1zK1P3hUP3CebMNvUXDOQcikvzyiOTX4X6xRRhBM         B3Qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVgVqCBiCqaYAvSi/TjNMGtb1+t2ckw43Mdw5cQD9DDNabij7PN	AHYSX1KNvAEoKqlEPTb0MZtwkg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RkjCtjPqXw6Gn47onIAfXY3LyGSTCwCMd9Xtci6zKG4aIIfH+QfuNv39sVxPdIaYveLSpt9g==
X-Received: by 10.28.197.65 with SMTP id v62mr1833303wmf.9.1508424408357;        Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:46:48 -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>
From: Marco Atzeri <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID: <d45e7499-fc92-f1a8-5de4-2b43b803e437@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:46:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5e3588d9-d0a6-4181-54aa-56afa5082eab@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 19/10/2017 15:25, 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!

It seems all cygwin package maintainers have no problem.
So are you causing yourself a not-existing problem ?






--
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