Is "host" the build or the target system?

[Kelly O'Hair]

Ok.  You've sold me the bridge. I may need some time and a few glasses of wine, but I think I am with you.

I'm still a little shocked at the autoconf terminology.  Seems like they completely complicated things for a situation
that was extremely rare and few people would ever need to do or even care about.

For the record, I'm in favor of your compromise.  Thanks for the time in explaining it to this autoconf novice, me. ;^)

-kto

On May 24, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

> On 2012-05-24 17:00, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> So we should talk about this, and maybe come up with a compromise or alternative terminology.
> 
> Just to be clear: My suggestion was to use "build system" for the platform you are building on, and "target system" for the platform the resulting binary should run on, and that we should stay clear of "host".
> 
> Rationale: "build system" and "target system" seems hard to misunderstand, regardless of your previous experiences.
> 
> "Host" on the other hand, is vague enough to be able to be used in the sense of "build system" (as in the old openjdk makefiles) or as "target system" (as in the autoconf tradition), depending (I guess) if your mindset is centered on the build process or the resulting binary. So I say: don't use it at all.
> 
> This means that:
> * The openjdk tradition of calling the target system "target" is kept, but the build system will be renamed from "host" to "build".
> * The autoconf tradition of calling the build system "build" is kept, but the target system will be renamed from "host" to "target".
> 
> I think it sounds like a good compromise. :)
> 
> /Magnus