Обсуждение: Updating config.guess/config.sub for ppc64le

Hi,

to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.

Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:
> to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
> patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.

Our normal procedure is
o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta  (from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)

(memo to self: this better happen today).  Is that patch just subbing
in the latest upstream scripts, or is it doing something else?
        regards, tom lane

Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-10 <27476.1399729986@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:
> > to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
> > patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.
> 
> Our normal procedure is
> 
>     o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
>       (from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)
> 
> (memo to self: this better happen today).  Is that patch just subbing
> in the latest upstream scripts, or is it doing something else?

It's just updating to whatever version was current at the time the
problem was popping up. I should have mentioned that, but I figured
you'd probably go for the upstream version anyway... :)

Thanks for the update.

Christoph
-- 
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-10 <27476.1399729986@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:
> > to support ppc64le, config.guess needs to be updated. The attached
> > patch is what was reported to work for Ubuntu.
> 
> Our normal procedure is
> 
>     o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
>       (from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)
> 
> (memo to self: this better happen today).  Is that patch just subbing
> in the latest upstream scripts, or is it doing something else?

Fwiw, shouldn't that also happen in back branches?

Updating config.* there gives you portability to new architectures for
free - and there should be no risk of breaking anything.

Christoph
-- 
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> writes:
> Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-10 <27476.1399729986@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Our normal procedure is
>> o update config.guess and config.sub at the start of beta
>> (from http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config)

> Fwiw, shouldn't that also happen in back branches?

No, we are not in the habit of back-patching such changes, at least
not automatically.  I'd be willing to consider it once the new scripts
have survived a beta-testing cycle ... however, a look at our commit
logs shows we have never actually updated config.guess/config.sub in
any back branch.

> Updating config.* there gives you portability to new architectures for
> free - and there should be no risk of breaking anything.

The policy of not back-patching dates back to circa 2000, when new
config scripts *routinely* broke things due to changes in what they
printed on some machines (again, there's lots of evidence on this point
in our commit history).  Perhaps that's less of a concern nowadays.
Still, there seems to be zero field demand for doing this.

As for "new architectures for free", nope --- spinlock assembly code
is usually the gating factor for that, not the config scripts.
        regards, tom lane