[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Dec 2020 01:06:00 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-197-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > I would recommend to just document the problem and workaround in two places:
> > 1) in the OmniOS community,
> > 2) at https://gitlab.com/ghwiki/gnow-how/-/wikis/Platforms/Configuration for
> > GNU people.
>
> That seems reasonable.
OK, what can I write in (2)? Are the following values right?
solaris11omnios-x86-32-gcc CC="gcc -m32 -O2" CXX="g++ -m32 -O2"
CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash
solaris11omnios-x86-64-gcc CC="gcc -m64 -O2" CXX="g++ -m64 -O2"
CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash
Or, if you want, I can let you edit this table.
> This Google reference (which is likely based on Google Search data) is
> very annoying to me and it seems irrelevant. There is no need to
> diminish a viable free operating system.
I didn't purposely diminish OmniOS. But Zack asked for our thoughts on
how to deal with a bug. As usual, "add workaround to the code" and
"add workaround to the documentation" are viable alternatives. In my
opinion, the size of the user base does play a role. If every other
circumstances were equal, I would spend more time on a workaround for
FreeBSD than on a workaround for OmniOS. And I would recommend the same
thing to Zack.
How to estimate the size of the user base of an OS? Like you, I dislike
Google. But their trends site is a way to do such estimations, and I know
of no other or better way. (For packages, but not for OSes, there is also
the Debian popularity contest.)
> In a similar spirit, I should point out that Illumos is doing better
> than CLISP according to trends.google.com since the limited
> popularlity is stable and not dwindling. ;-)
Indeed, CLISP failed to achieve world domination. JavaScript did, instead.
I failed. ;-)
Bruno
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, (continued)
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, Zack Weinberg, 2020/12/23
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, Bob Friesenhahn, 2020/12/23
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, Bob Friesenhahn, 2020/12/23
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, Zack Weinberg, 2020/12/23
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, Bob Friesenhahn, 2020/12/23
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 AC_TYPE_INTMAX_T test failure under OmniOS, Zack Weinberg, 2020/12/24
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh, Zack Weinberg, 2020/12/24
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh, Bruno Haible, 2020/12/24
- [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh, Bob Friesenhahn, 2020/12/24
- Re: [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh, Bob Friesenhahn, 2020/12/24
- Re: [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [sr #110403] autoconf-2.70 trips bug in here-doc handling in OmniOS /bin/sh, Bob Friesenhahn, 2020/12/25