On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 03:53:38AM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> But that's not what I want. Do you want to have a separate ABI universe
> for l4-hurd? Do you want Debian to consider l4hurd-i386 a different
> architecture than hurd-i386? Do you want separate toolchains and different
> gcc predefines? I don't want those things. I want the single "cpu-gnu"
> toolchains (gcc and binutils) to be right for both.
Would it be reasonable to consider overloading the vendor portion of
this? i386-l4-gnu and i386-mach-gnu would both still match everything
correctly for userland apps that are trying to determine services.
config.guess could be taught to to figure it out (possibly based on the
presence of libmachuser.so?)
I don't think it's that far fetched -- We're refering to the vendor of
the microkernel. Because it affects very few packages, it's not that
big of a deal if it gets discarded in some hardcoded place.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
Are you going to stay vegeterian?
Are you going to start eating human flesh?
(from http://www.moshez.org/vegeterian.html)
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
