From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 28 07:34:44 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id HAA11104 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 07:34:44 -0700 Received: from dataplex.net (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA11094 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 07:34:37 -0700 Received: from [199.183.109.242] by dataplex.net with SMTP (MailShare 1.0b8); Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:34:31 -0500 X-Sender: wacky@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:34:32 -0500 To: Brian Tao From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Kernel configuration/compilation tool Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >> >> Not today :-( Maybe next .... (sometime) >> But we should not be building any new mechanisms that are incompatible with >> that goal. > > I don't see anything in the current model that inherently shuts >the door on non-Intel ports. Most of the stuff appears as either an >"option" or a "device", and those need to be specified no matter which >platform you choose to compile for. I concur. By making the selection driven by a per-architecture database scheme, we will be able to easily expand into different options for different architectures. These are the kind of design decisions that I advocate as "not incompatabile with different architectures". I don't expect us to instantly get to something that is "right" for working in any architecture, but I do think that we can begin moving in that direction. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net