Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:53:35 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". Message-ID: <20030128225335.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20030128120830.A81856@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030125153116.A25743@FreeBSD.org> <20030128.233856.71130419.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20030128120830.A81856@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[sorry -- dropping in the middle of the thread] On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:08:30PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > > This approach is a really bad one architecturally, in my opinion. It means > there is a lot of duplication of what may all be VERY similar, and it means > that if we had say 5 platforms supported by the MIPS port (certainly this is > not a high number at all) that means there would be 5 directories under > src/sys... And none of them would be "mips" since we wouldn't be supporting > any hardware called "mips", that's just the general architecture. I tend to agree. > I just really would like things to be clean, and abstracted, and not waste > anyone's time. Why should we have to duplicate so much code? I'm not sure platform is the answer. We already have the distinction between MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE and it looks to me that MACHINE can do what you try to achieve with platform. Why add a "platform" keyword to config(8) if we already have the "machine" keyword? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030128225335.GB537>