Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:12:09 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [RFC] splitting of conf/NOTES Message-ID: <20030224191209.GA559@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <3E59F665.DCD54EAF@mindspring.com> References: <20030224001644.GA67255@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030224120037.D4403-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20030224023118.GD67312@dragon.nuxi.com> <3E59E8F4.884C9160@mindspring.com> <20030224100336.GB21088@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <3E59F665.DCD54EAF@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 02:39:33AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:42:12AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > What they should probably *get* is per machine exceptions, via > > > "nodevice", which are then correctable on a case by case basis, > > > instead of having to be corrected globally for all the platforms > > > all at once. > > > > Isn't that's like voting for spam because people can install > > filters? or like an opt out mailing list: remove yourself if > > you think you're exceptional? > > Isn't it also more related to kernel config files where we list > > devices when we want to add support for them, not to list devices > > we don't want to support? > > No, it's closer to NOT_FOR_ARCHS and ONLY_FOR_ARCHS in the ports > system Makefiles, such that ports are allowed to be broken for > particular architectures, where the port maintainer has no way > of verifying that they actually work. > > In fact, it's exactly like that, except instead of a port maintainer, > we're talking about a driver maintainer. I think there's a fundamental difference. NOT_FOR_ and ONLY_FOR_ are variables set in a ports makefile. To get the list of ports that could be compiled on a platform, one has to visit each and every port first. The "nodevice" approach is exactly the opposite. It's not the driver that tells for which architectures it's meant to be written, it's the architecture that "rejects" drivers. The NOT_FOR_ and ONLY_FOR_ approach would work in the kernel as well. > I think people need to fact the fact that i386 is the FreeBSD > reference platform, and all other platforms are second class > citizens. Our i386 platform is still the best maintained and supported. This however doesn't contribute anything to a possible solution other than to indicate that a i386 centric solution at the cost of non-i386 platforms is acceptable. I disagree... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030224191209.GA559>