Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:20:26 +0100 From: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: developer@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <20010115012026.B4504@webcom.it> In-Reply-To: <31573.979509396@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:56:36PM %2B0100 References: <20010114221651.A3627@webcom.it> <31573.979509396@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Sorry Poul, I think the question here is: "if we decide to remove i386 support
> >BUT a few people still want to use it and can maintain it as a separate
> >platform port, is it an option to do so, from a technical point of view?"
> >
> (This is a general answer, not just about i386 support:)
>
> Any feature in FreeBSD needs a minimum amount of maintenance. If
> nobody cares about some particular bit of code, it will slowly of
> quickly rot away.
Sure, but my question was different. I wrote "want to use it and can
maintain". I was asking, if somebody is willing enough, is it feasible
to split it to a separate arch, and put it under that person's
maintainership? Of course, if nobody is willing to do this, then
obviously it's not worth it, I agree.
And no, I'm not volunteering ;-)
> The reason against doing so is that it complicates our code. Makes
> it less readable. Forces us to make tradeoffs which hits modern
> hardware on the performance meter.
Agree. But splitting it out is a one time job, I don't think it would
be that hard, and after that you can delete old code from x86 tree,
and let x386 tree live its own life...
Bye,
Andrea
--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
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?20010115012026.B4504>