Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:13:10 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc:        msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith), kim@tinker.com, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Kernel layout reshuffle (Was: Re: FAQ?) 
Message-ID:  <E0w4piI-0004Pf-00@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:45:23 MST." <199703120145.SAA26524@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
References:  <199703120145.SAA26524@phaeton.artisoft.com>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199703120145.SAA26524@phaeton.artisoft.com> Terry Lambert writes:
: FreeBSD needs to let Richard Wackerbarth's ideas be implemented,
: even if Richard isn't the person who does it.  Among other things.

Hmmm, I don't know enough about Richard's stuff to know if it goes
this far...

: It would be nice if the structure of the source tree did not
: actively oppose porting to other platforms.  For instance, it would
: be nice to have:
: 
: o	A build system that will work on all platforms
: o	Install tools that will work the same on all
: 	platforms.
: o	Kernel dependent components built along with kernel
: o	SMP treated as if it were an architecture
: o	Better seperation of bus code into x86 dependent and
: 	indepedent pieces
: o	Better seperation of all code
: o	Seperation of PCI code probe ordering so that on the
: 	DEC Alpha, where the ISA is bridged off the PCI instead
: 	of the other way around

I don't know if I agree on all of these.  So far I've found that
building the kernel seems to work OK on my intel box or my OpenBSD
mips box, but building the userland is a nightmare.  Work does need to
be done to make that sane.  I've also found that x86 knows too much
about busses and the like.  I don't know if NetBSD is the way to go
here, but if there were one unified, flawed API, vs many different
ones with ours being perfect, you uknow which one I'd pick :-).

FreeBSD is a mess to cross compile its userland.  I punted quickly
after trying once.  Too many thing build things that then are used to
build the target.  OpenBSD is much better about this.

Anyway, there are many tasks needed to make FreeBSD truly porting
friendly.

Warner



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0w4piI-0004Pf-00>