The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout
my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is
there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful?

Thanks!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Ted Unangst-6
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 18:18, Adam Jensen wrote:
> I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout
> my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is
> there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful?

It means nothing. 900 years ago somebody thought adding a company
field to the cpu-company-os triplet used by gnu configure was a good
idea, but you can't change it without breaking everything.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Christian Weisgerber
In reply to this post by Adam Jensen
Adam Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout
> my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is
> there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful?

It is largely meaningless.  Historically, it was used to distinguish
different platforms that used the same CPU; m68k-sun vs. m68k-hp300
or such.  For operating systems that have the same userland on all
machines with the same CPU architecture, this middle name is
redundant.  You can change it by calling GNU configure scripts with
a different configure target name.

FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL} in
its ports tree and configures gdb with ${TARGET_ARCH}-marcel-freebsd,
because Marcel Moolenaar did the import work.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Marc Espie-2
In reply to this post by Adam Jensen
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:18:44PM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote:
> I see the string "i386-unknown-openbsd5.4" in various places throughout
> my system. What does the "unknown" part of this string refer to and is
> there a canonical way to set it to something more meaningful?
>
> Thanks!

Ah, but then the FSF will know who you are !

(well, basically, it's another example of over-engineering, and bad tools.
You can't change it without breaking every gnu-configure script in existence
and then some...)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
In reply to this post by Christian Weisgerber
On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:52:31 +0000 (UTC)
[hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
>

I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
gnu-configure script in existence".

It shows up in so many places, even my email headers:

X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)

To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Ted Unangst-6
In reply to this post by Adam Jensen
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 19:11, Adam Jensen wrote:

> It shows up in so many places, even my email headers:
>
> X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)
>
> To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
> sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.

Well, that's true. If the admin cares about the value in X-Mailer, the
admin should configure a better value.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
In reply to this post by Adam Jensen
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:11:25PM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:52:31 +0000 (UTC)
> [hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> > ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
> >
>
> I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
> gnu-configure script in existence".

You just need to create a few tens of thousands of patches to fix the
mess and send everything to upstream.

>
> It shows up in so many places, even my email headers:
>
> X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)
>
> To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
> sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.
>

--
Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
In reply to this post by Ted Unangst-6
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 22:06:47 -0500
Ted Unangst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, that's true. If the admin cares about the value in
> X-Mailer, the admin should configure a better value.
>

Patching the various occurrences of this string might be more
cumbersome than changing the way it's generated and used
throughout the system, but I get your gist.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Brad Smith-14
On 01/02/14 11:18 PM, Adam Jensen wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 22:06:47 -0500
> Ted Unangst <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Well, that's true. If the admin cares about the value in
>> X-Mailer, the admin should configure a better value.
>>
>
> Patching the various occurrences of this string might be more
> cumbersome than changing the way it's generated and used
> throughout the system, but I get your gist.

The way it is generated can be changed very easily and contrary
to the previous comment it doesn't break all autoconf scripts
that use the triplet. But there is no purpose for doing so. OMG
something I don't understand, must... fiddle... with.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 00:23:18 -0500
Brad Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The way it is generated can be changed very easily and contrary
> to the previous comment it doesn't break all autoconf scripts

Will you share your technique?

> that use the triplet. But there is no purpose for doing so. OMG
> something I don't understand, must... fiddle... with.
>

There's an aesthetic nicety that comes from having everything
well organized and thoughtfully labeled. But I agree with you
that there is no immediate functional gain.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Marc Espie-2
In reply to this post by Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:23:22AM +0100, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 07:11:25PM -0500, Adam Jensen wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:52:31 +0000 (UTC)
> > [hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> >
> > > FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> > > ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
> > >
> >
> > I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
> > gnu-configure script in existence".
>
> You just need to create a few tens of thousands of patches to fix the
> mess and send everything to upstream.

Actually, we have our own config.guess so getting configured as something
else is already patched for.

But there are things that actually use the "unknown". Most notorious being
gcc.

So far, I don't see anyone jumping up and down to fix gcc to use something
sane.

Even though it's one of those annoying ports that you have to bump every
release because the directory name changes for no reason relevant to how
we do things.

naddy ? brad ?
if that's so simple, how about a patch so we get something sane ? like
amd64-openbsd, the way the perl does, instead of the obnoxious
amd64-unknown-openbsd5.5  that we hate ?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Christian Weisgerber
In reply to this post by Adam Jensen
Adam Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > FreeBSD is more playful: It has ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd
> > ${OSREL} in its ports tree and ...
>
> I wonder how the FreeBSD guys changed it "without breaking every
> gnu-configure script in existence".

They didn't.  I think espie is simply mistaken.  FreeBSD has a check
whether to use --build=${CONFIGURE_TARGET} or call older configure
scripts directly with ${CONFIGURE_TARGET}, and occasionally there's
a :S/amd64/x86_64/, but that's it.  There are no patches and FreeBSD
does not overwrite the included config.sub.

As far as I can tell, that middle part is simply ignored.

> X-Mailer:Sylpheed 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; i386-unknown-openbsd5.4)
>
> To the uninitiated masses, it might seem like the system was
> sloppily configured or in some other way the admin was confused.

At least it's consistent.  FreeBSD's collection of
  -undermydesk- (gcc)
  -marcel-  (gdb)
  -unknown- (clang, binutils, occasionally in ports)
  -portbld- (most ports)
would never confuse anybody, would it?

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Christian Weisgerber
In reply to this post by Marc Espie-2
Marc Espie <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But there are things that actually use the "unknown". Most notorious being
> gcc.

Hmm... no?
I'm too lazy to compile a gcc port on FreeBSD now, but as far as I can
tell, it just uses...

.if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
CONFIGURE_TARGET=       x86_64-portbld-${OPSYS:L}${OSREL}
.else
CONFIGURE_TARGET=       ${ARCH}-portbld-${OPSYS:L}${OSREL}
.endif

... and that's it.

> Even though it's one of those annoying ports that you have to bump every
> release because the directory name changes for no reason relevant to how
> we do things.

That's the OSREV part of the operating system.  Different issue.

> if that's so simple, how about a patch so we get something sane ? like
> amd64-openbsd, the way the perl does, instead of the obnoxious
> amd64-unknown-openbsd5.5  that we hate ?

I doubt that you can just _drop_ the middle part.  We can replace
"unknown" with something else.
"dummy"?  No, Adam will think we're stupid.
"generic"?  No, Adam will think we're cheap.
Maybe we can just leave it.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
In reply to this post by Christian Weisgerber
On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:17:08 +0000 (UTC)
[hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> At least it's consistent.  FreeBSD's collection of
>   -undermydesk- (gcc)
>   -marcel-  (gdb)
>   -unknown- (clang, binutils, occasionally in ports)
>   -portbld- (most ports)
> would never confuse anybody, would it?
>

It would certainly be disappointing to see something like that
in OpenBSD. A new naming convention wouldn't necessarily need to
be whimsical and inconsistent, would it? (That's a rhetorical
question, but you get my point, right?)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

kwesterback
i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4?

..... Ken


On 2 February 2014 12:10, Adam Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:17:08 +0000 (UTC)
> [hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>> At least it's consistent.  FreeBSD's collection of
>>   -undermydesk- (gcc)
>>   -marcel-  (gdb)
>>   -unknown- (clang, binutils, occasionally in ports)
>>   -portbld- (most ports)
>> would never confuse anybody, would it?
>>
>
> It would certainly be disappointing to see something like that
> in OpenBSD. A new naming convention wouldn't necessarily need to
> be whimsical and inconsistent, would it? (That's a rhetorical
> question, but you get my point, right?)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Jeremie Courreges-Anglas-2
In reply to this post by Christian Weisgerber
[hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) writes:

[...]

> Maybe we can just leave it.

Indeed.

--
jca | PGP: 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
(previous: 0x06A11494 / 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90  8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:19:50 +0100
[hidden email] (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) wrote:

> > Maybe we can just leave it.
>
> Indeed.
>

Well, at least you didn't call it a bikeshed issue (though, that
probably would have been a more compelling statement).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Jeremie Courreges-Anglas-2
Adam Jensen <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:19:50 +0100
> [hidden email] (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) wrote:
>
>> > Maybe we can just leave it.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>
> Well, at least you didn't call it a bikeshed issue (though, that
> probably would have been a more compelling statement).

Fine: I call this a bikeshed issue.

--
jca | PGP: 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
(previous: 0x06A11494 / 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90  8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Adam Jensen
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:43:15 +0100
[hidden email] (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) wrote:

> >> > Maybe we can just leave it.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >
> > Well, at least you didn't call it a bikeshed issue (though,
> > that probably would have been a more compelling statement).
>
> Fine: I call this a bikeshed issue.
>

All that's needed now is a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
and the cycle will be complete.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The "unknown" in i386-unknown-openbsd5.4

Miod Vallat
In reply to this post by kwesterback
> i386-donatetoopenbsdfoundationtoday-openbsd5.4?

or i386-bikeshed-openbsd.

12