Re: branch-1-5 UnixWare fixes

[Tim Rice]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> * Tim Rice wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:41:21PM CEST:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > : * Tim Rice wrote on Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 10:05:21PM CEST:
> 
[snip]
> > : > : Content-Description: branch-1-5-uw.patch
> *snip*
> > : > : >  
> > : > : > -sysv4*uw2* | unixware7*)
> > : > : > +unixware7*)
> > : > : 
> > : > : Now, this macro doesn't have a match for sysv4*uw2* any more.  Is this
> > : > : intentional?
> > : > 
> > : > Quite intentional. Look at the case above, it already had sysv4*uw2* so
> > : > the one I removed would never have been used anyway. Adding the "pc)"
> > : > case to the $host_vendor part did what the other case was supposed to 
> > do.
> > : 
> > : Erm, it had sysv4.2uw2* but not sysv4*uw2*.  If both should be treated
> > : similarly here, then you should replace the former with the latter (in
> > : the line where sysv4 is also matched)
> > 
> > Remind me never to take a proof reading job. I guess my brain was focusing
> > in the uw2 part.
> > All UnixWare 2.x versions (and 1.x) are sysv4.2, so the sysv4*uw2 entry
> > becomes redundant.
> 
> Well, I _was_ cheating a bit:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2005-09/msg00013.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-09/msg00036.html
> (be sure to look through both threads -- I installed a bogus patch first,
> stumbling over this exact same issue ;-)

And I made the same mistake (sysv4*uw2/sysv4.2*uw2) in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2004-10/msg00012.html

OK, so we don't need to worry about sysv4*uw2 as all UnixWare 2 are
sysv4.2

> 
> > : > It could be cleanded up further by having "sysv5* | unixware7*)".
> > : > (UnixWare 7 is sysv5)
> > : 
> > : Hmm, then both of those should be treated similarly, I guess?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ralf
> 

-- 
Tim Rice                                Multitalents    (707) 887-1469
address@hidden