Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Andy wrote: > We've all 'written' things that get misinterpreted.. context is often lost > in written language ;) > Which is a good reminder to think before you press send on that email. -- chs
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
We've all 'written' things that get misinterpreted.. context is often lost in written language ;) On Mon 03 Feb 2014 17:05:25 GMT, Adam Jensen wrote: On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:57:28 + Andy wrote: Please realise who you are talking to and learn to treat this community with respect whether they're a first time user, or a lead dev.. Despite the contextual irony, that seems like a good point. Thanks!
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:57:28 + Andy wrote: > Please realise who you are talking to and learn to treat this > community with respect whether they're a first time user, or a > lead dev.. > Despite the contextual irony, that seems like a good point. Thanks!
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
Claudio is one of the main developers and contributers to OpenBSD and does what he does for free for fun like all the devs, so we can go to work and get paid.. Please realise who you are talking to and learn to treat this community with respect whether they're a first time user, or a lead dev.. He was just trying to end a moot point. On Mon 03 Feb 2014 16:34:36 GMT, Claudio Jeker wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:18:30AM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote: On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:15:39 -0500 Brad Smith wrote: Enough is enough. Just drop it. Of course people are going to start making fun of this non issue. How bizarre. I'm sorry the discussion has offended you but I don't think your commands have any authority. If it's a delicate topic, perhaps you could ignore the thread? Great, you tell a developer with almost 10'000 OpenBSD commits to have no authority. Fuck off.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:18:30AM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote: > On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:15:39 -0500 > Brad Smith wrote: > > > Enough is enough. Just drop it. Of course people are > > going to start making fun of this non issue. > > > > How bizarre. I'm sorry the discussion has offended you but I > don't think your commands have any authority. If it's a delicate > topic, perhaps you could ignore the thread? > Great, you tell a developer with almost 10'000 OpenBSD commits to have no authority. Fuck off. -- :wq Claudio
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:15:39 -0500 Brad Smith wrote: > Enough is enough. Just drop it. Of course people are > going to start making fun of this non issue. > How bizarre. I'm sorry the discussion has offended you but I don't think your commands have any authority. If it's a delicate topic, perhaps you could ignore the thread?
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On 02/02/14 1:50 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:18:06 + (UTC) na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: Miod Vallat wrote: i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4? or i386-bikeshed-openbsd. What is the string equivalent of goatse or tubgirl? Maybe something simple that distinguishes compilers: i386-gcc-openbsd5.4 i386-clang-openbsd5.4 Or something more elaborate signifies the origin: Locally compiled: i386-srcbld-openbsd5.4 i386-portbld-openbsd5.4 Upstream binary releases: i386-dist-openbsd5.4 i386-package-openbsd5.4 Enough is enough. Just drop it. Of course people are going to start making fun of this non issue. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:18:06 + (UTC) na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: > Miod Vallat wrote: > > > > i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4? > > > > or i386-bikeshed-openbsd. > > What is the string equivalent of goatse or tubgirl? > Maybe something simple that distinguishes compilers: i386-gcc-openbsd5.4 i386-clang-openbsd5.4 Or something more elaborate signifies the origin: Locally compiled: i386-srcbld-openbsd5.4 i386-portbld-openbsd5.4 Upstream binary releases: i386-dist-openbsd5.4 i386-package-openbsd5.4
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
Miod Vallat wrote: > > i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4? > > or i386-bikeshed-openbsd. What is the string equivalent of goatse or tubgirl? -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
> i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4? or i386-bikeshed-openbsd.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:43:15 +0100 j...@wxcvbn.org (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) wrote: > >> > Maybe we can just leave it. > >> > >> Indeed. > >> > > > > Well, at least you didn't call it a bikeshed issue (though, > > that probably would have been a more compelling statement). > > Fine: I call this a bikeshed issue. > All that's needed now is a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler and the cycle will be complete.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
Adam Jensen writes: > On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:19:50 +0100 > j...@wxcvbn.org (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) wrote: > >> > Maybe we can just leave it. >> >> Indeed. >> > > Well, at least you didn't call it a bikeshed issue (though, that > probably would have been a more compelling statement). Fine: I call this a bikeshed issue. -- jca | PGP: 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE (previous: 0x06A11494 / 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494)
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:19:50 +0100 j...@wxcvbn.org (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) wrote: > > Maybe we can just leave it. > > Indeed. > Well, at least you didn't call it a bikeshed issue (though, that probably would have been a more compelling statement).
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: [...] > Maybe we can just leave it. Indeed. -- jca | PGP: 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE (previous: 0x06A11494 / 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494)
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4? . Ken On 2 February 2014 12:10, Adam Jensen wrote: > On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:17:08 + (UTC) > na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: > >> At least it's consistent. FreeBSD's collection of >> -undermydesk- (gcc) >> -marcel- (gdb) >> -unknown- (clang, binutils, occasionally in ports) >> -portbld- (most ports) >> would never confuse anybody, would it? >> > > It would certainly be disappointing to see something like that > in OpenBSD. A new naming convention wouldn't necessarily need to > be whimsical and inconsistent, would it? (That's a rhetorical > question, but you get my point, right?)
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:17:08 + (UTC) na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: > At least it's consistent. FreeBSD's collection of > -undermydesk- (gcc) > -marcel- (gdb) > -unknown- (clang, binutils, occasionally in ports) > -portbld- (most ports) > would never confuse anybody, would it? > It would certainly be disappointing to see something like that in OpenBSD. A new naming convention wouldn't necessarily need to be whimsical and inconsistent, would it? (That's a rhetorical question, but you get my point, right?)
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
Marc Espie wrote:
> But there are things that actually use the "unknown". Most notorious being
> gcc.
Hmm... no?
I'm too lazy to compile a gcc port on FreeBSD now, but as far as I can
tell, it just uses...
.if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
CONFIGURE_TARGET= x86_64-portbld-${OPSYS:L}${OSREL}
.else
CONFIGURE_TARGET= ${ARCH}-portbld-${OPSYS:L}${OSREL}
.endif
... and that's it.
> Even though it's one of those annoying ports that you have to bump every
> release because the directory name changes for no reason relevant to how
> we do things.
That's the OSREV part of the operating system. Different issue.
> if that's so simple, how about a patch so we get something sane ? like
> amd64-openbsd, the way the perl does, instead of the obnoxious
> amd64-unknown-openbsd5.5 that we hate ?
I doubt that you can just _drop_ the middle part. We can replace
"unknown" with something else.
"dummy"? No, Adam will think we're stupid.
"generic"? No, Adam will think we're cheap.
Maybe we can just leave it.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
Adam Jensen wrote:
> > FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> > ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
>
> I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
> gnu-configure script in existence".
They didn't. I think espie is simply mistaken. FreeBSD has a check
whether to use --build=${CONFIGURE_TARGET} or call older configure
scripts directly with ${CONFIGURE_TARGET}, and occasionally there's
a :S/amd64/x86_64/, but that's it. There are no patches and FreeBSD
does not overwrite the included config.sub.
As far as I can tell, that middle part is simply ignored.
> X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)
>
> To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
> sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.
At least it's consistent. FreeBSD's collection of
-undermydesk- (gcc)
-marcel- (gdb)
-unknown- (clang, binutils, occasionally in ports)
-portbld- (most ports)
would never confuse anybody, would it?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:23:22AM +0100, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:11:25PM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:52:31 + (UTC)
> > na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> >
> > > FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> > > ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
> > >
> >
> > I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
> > gnu-configure script in existence".
>
> You just need to create a few tens of thousands of patches to fix the
> mess and send everything to upstream.
Actually, we have our own config.guess so getting configured as something
else is already patched for.
But there are things that actually use the "unknown". Most notorious being
gcc.
So far, I don't see anyone jumping up and down to fix gcc to use something
sane.
Even though it's one of those annoying ports that you have to bump every
release because the directory name changes for no reason relevant to how
we do things.
naddy ? brad ?
if that's so simple, how about a patch so we get something sane ? like
amd64-openbsd, the way the perl does, instead of the obnoxious
amd64-unknown-openbsd5.5 that we hate ?
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 00:23:18 -0500 Brad Smith wrote: > The way it is generated can be changed very easily and contrary > to the previous comment it doesn't break all autoconf scripts Will you share your technique? > that use the triplet. But there is no purpose for doing so. OMG > something I don't understand, must... fiddle... with. > There's an aesthetic nicety that comes from having everything well organized and thoughtfully labeled. But I agree with you that there is no immediate functional gain.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On 01/02/14 11:18 PM, Adam Jensen wrote: On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 22:06:47 -0500 Ted Unangst wrote: Well, that's true. If the admin cares about the value in X-Mailer, the admin should configure a better value. Patching the various occurrences of this string might be more cumbersome than changing the way it's generated and used throughout the system, but I get your gist. The way it is generated can be changed very easily and contrary to the previous comment it doesn't break all autoconf scripts that use the triplet. But there is no purpose for doing so. OMG something I don't understand, must... fiddle... with. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:11:25PM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:52:31 + (UTC)
> na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> > ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
> >
>
> I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
> gnu-configure script in existence".
You just need to create a few tens of thousands of patches to fix the
mess and send everything to upstream.
>
> It shows up in so many places, even my email headers:
>
> X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)
>
> To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
> sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.
>
--
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 22:06:47 -0500 Ted Unangst wrote: > Well, that's true. If the admin cares about the value in > X-Mailer, the admin should configure a better value. > Patching the various occurrences of this string might be more cumbersome than changing the way it's generated and used throughout the system, but I get your gist.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 19:11, Adam Jensen wrote: > It shows up in so many places, even my email headers: > > X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4) > > To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was > sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused. Well, that's true. If the admin cares about the value in X-Mailer, the admin should configure a better value.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:52:31 + (UTC)
na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
>
I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
gnu-configure script in existence".
It shows up in so many places, even my email headers:
X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)
To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:18:44PM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote: > I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout > my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is > there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful? > > Thanks! Ah, but then the FSF will know who you are ! (well, basically, it's another example of over-engineering, and bad tools. You can't change it without breaking every gnu-configure script in existence and then some...)
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
Adam Jensen wrote:
> I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout
> my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is
> there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful?
It is largely meaningless. Historically, it was used to distinguish
different platforms that used the same CPU; m68k-sun vs. m68k-hp300
or such. For operating systems that have the same userland on all
machines with the same CPU architecture, this middle name is
redundant. You can change it by calling GNU configure scripts with
a different configure target name.
FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL} in
its ports tree and configures gdb with ${TARGET_ARCH}-marcel-freebsd,
because Marcel Moolenaar did the import work.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 18:18, Adam Jensen wrote: > I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout > my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is > there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful? It means nothing. 900 years ago somebody thought adding a company field to the cpu-company-os triplet used by gnu configure was a good idea, but you can't change it without breaking everything.
The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4
I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful? Thanks!
