Re: Hurdish salt and L4eeesh peppers

[Niels Möller]

Etienne Robillard <address@hidden> writes:

> 1. First of all, which '--target' should we refer to ?
> Is it okay to use i386-linux-gnu (which is not quite
> my definition of platform independent, but anyway,  )
> - what about i386-gnu ? 

I'll try this question, as I don't have much clue about the rest.

I'd say "i386-whatever-l4-hurd-gnu". Let me quote a message I wrote
long ago. I have no idea if current tools recognize this naming
scheme, though...

/Niels

: From: address@hidden (Niels Möller)
: Subject: Re: configuration
: To: OKUJI Yoshinori <address@hidden>
: Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
: Date: 08 Nov 2000 15:37:44 +0100
: 
: OKUJI Yoshinori <address@hidden> writes:
: 
: > From: address@hidden (Niels Möller)
: >
: > > Perhaps one ought to ask the autoconf people and rms what they think.
: > 
: >   Really. Can you do that?
: 
: I mailed rms and the bug-gnu-utils list (I think that's the right list
: for autoconf questions). According to rms, the canonical system name
: for the "plain" mach-based hurd system should be
: "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-hurd-gnu", not just "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-gnu"
: as I thought. What does the current glibc use? Furthermore,
: 
: rms>  If it is crucial to distinguish the microkernels, we could
: rms>  put them in too like this:
: rms>  
: rms>          CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-hurd-l4-gnu.
: rms>  
: rms>  or like this:
: rms>  
: rms>          CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-hurd+l4-gnu.
: 
: Miles Bader replied that it makes more sense to switch the hurd and l4
: components, giving "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-l4-hurd-gnu".
: 
: Miles>  Also this allows one to match against `*-hurd-gnu', which
: Miles>  seems more natural than requiring people to remember to say
: Miles>  `*-hurd*-gnu'.
: 
: My conclusion so far is that "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-l4-hurd-gnu" is a
: reasonable canonical system name to use.
: 
: /Niels