[pacman-dev] The real deal - pacman 3.0.0 RC1
pierre at archlinux.de
Mon Mar 5 10:57:38 EST 2007
Am Montag, 5. März 2007 16:25:09 schrieb Dan McGee:
> On 3/5/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/5/07, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de> wrote:
> > > Am Montag, 5. März 2007 00:34:15 schrieb Dan McGee:
> > > > This is the chost determined by configure, so I would guess it is
> > > > right. However, I do not know much about how that works, so you may
> > > > want to read up on it more if you think it is wrong.
> > >
> > > Well, other distros are using x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (e.g.:
> > > http://gentoo-wiki.com/Safe_Cflags#Athlon_64_.28AMD.29) So I think the
> > > current chost is wrong.
> > No one is questioning what is correct. The problem is that the
> > autotooled configure script is what generates this value. Not us. if
> > you look at the configure.ac script, it does:
> > CHOST="$host"
> > The host variable comes from configure.
yes, but i think this is initially hardcoded.
> If you have the time, please look into AC_CANONICAL_HOST, which is the
> standard for determining the host type. In addition, try downloading
> the most recent config.guess at
> and seeing what that produces for you. We may be using an outdated one
> pulled from somewhere on the system.
I talked to andyrtr about this and he said "unknown" was chosen because older
versions of autotools could not hanlde "pc". I have looked into
there you`ll finde the following comment:
# We use `pc' rather than `unknown'
# because (1) that's what they normally are, and
# (2) the word "unknown" tends to confuse beginning users.
i*86 | x86_64)
Well I do not know how important this chost variable is. ;-) But after some
research I would say that "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" would be corrent nowadays.
And btw: do you know any x86_64 machine which is not a pc?
More information about the pacman-dev