[Moving the discussion to autoconf@gnu.org]
Hi,
I've recently sent two patches against config.sub to
config-patc...@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg0.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg1.html
Yann Droneaud (2):
conf
On Sunday 2013-02-03 10:49, Yann Droneaud wrote:
>
>I tried to explain the reasonning behind those patches in the following
>thread:
>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg2.html
>
>Those patches are to be used as part of a kind of a workaround for the
>need to give a --b
Hi,
Le mardi 05 février 2013 à 19:15 +0100, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
> On Sunday 2013-02-03 10:49, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> >
> >So to create a "valid" --build argument, I was going to use
> >--build=`uname -p`-`uname -s` but its producing 'x86_64-Linux' which is
> >not recognized by config.sub.
>
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 12:19, Yann Droneaud wrote:
>Le mardi 05 février 2013 à 19:15 +0100, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
>> On Sunday 2013-02-03 10:49, Yann Droneaud wrote:
>> >
>> >So to create a "valid" --build argument, I was going to use
>> >--build=`uname -p`-`uname -s` but its producing 'x86_64-Li
On 03/02/13 09:49, Yann Droneaud wrote:
[Moving the discussion to autoconf@gnu.org]
So to create a "valid" --build argument, I was going to use
--build=`uname -p`-`uname -s` but its producing 'x86_64-Linux' which is
not recognized by config.sub. I was surprised by the behavor and made
patches to
