[PATCH] Bump config.sub and config.guess to latest versions

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 12:38 +0100, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:49:19 +0100
> Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:15 +0100, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:20:56 +0100
> > > Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> <snipp typo fix>
> 
> > > > # make
> > > > make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
> > > > 
> > > > Thus, atoconf is a requirement. And if it is present,
> > > > it will generate new config.sub and config.guess.
> > > > 
> > > > What am I missing?
> > 
> > > If you have old config.sub and config.guess on your build machine,
> > > the AVR32 architecture is not present, thus the ./configure step
> > > will fail to identify the architecture.
> > 
> > BUT autoreconf REWRITES THESE FILES ANYWAY. At least that is what I
> > see.
> > 
> 
> Yes, autoreconf rewrites them, but grabs them from your distribution.
> At least ubuntu does so, by fetching them from /usr/share/automake
> directory. On some distributions (old disties) these files are outdated.
> 
> > What's the point in correcting these files if they are rewritten by
> > autoreconf and thus their "old" contents is irrelevant?
> > 
> 
> In the releases you do not have to do autoreconf, hence not having
> updated config.guess/sub there might make the newer architectures not
> work.

I don't know how releases are prepared, I imagine autoreconf run is done
and all resulting machinery (configure and stuff) is included.
So these files would be generated (or updated) by this process anyway.

> Btw: the patch was "old", i.e. before I saw that you removed them
> completely from CVS.

I understand.

I don't understand how it could be helping before that removal.
The only scenario I can imagine when it would work is if one copies cvs
tree into an older *release* tree, and then runs configure (it is there
because release tree has it). But this is a quite awkward way of
building strace from cvs (makes sense only if one does not have
autoconf?), and is prone to subtle problems (extra stale header files
and such).


> > Can you give me exact sequence of commands you use to build strace
> > from cvs tree, one which does not work with "bad" config.sub and
> > config.guess, but works with updated ones?
> >
> 
> I think we agree, but are discussing two sides of the same matter?

Looks like.
--
vda