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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]