On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 09:30 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Samuel Bronson, le Sat 02 Feb 2013 00:39:29 -0500, a écrit : > > The Hurd people should probably investigate whether a MACH macro is > > actually useful in the first place: Why not __MACH__? Is there > > something which would stop working if MACH were no longer defined? > > Well, this is the same under Linux with the "linux" macro, and "i386", > etc. :) > > But yes, we do consider dropping the MACH macro, we have checked the > Debian source for such macros, it should be fine. > > I however don't know how far we are on this, anybody?
This was discussed already in September, October and November last year: http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/09/msg00018.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/10/msg00003.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2012/11/msg00008.html Still no decision on gcc not defining MACH or the build patch applied upstream. Thomas? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
