From owner-freebsd-sparc Thu Jan 20 7:18:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc@freebsd.org Received: from mail.xmission.com (mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E460514C0C for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:18:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [204.68.178.39] (helo=softweyr.com ident=wes) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #3) id 12BJM2-0002T5-00; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:18:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3887284C.7712C2EE@softweyr.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:22:52 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lyndon Griffin Cc: freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "base" system References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lyndon Griffin wrote: > > In going over all the posts the past two days, I think it would be best if > we use NetBSD as our "base" system. This gives us a number of advantages: > * leveraging knowledge of previous porting efforts (FreeBSD/axp) > * possibility of using NetBSD's cross-compiler port (in fact, there is > not an openbsd-sparc target for gcc/binutils/gdb in the distributions) > * leveraging platform dependent code from netbsd/sparc > * for the most part, those that have expressed opinion on which to > use seem to want netbsd > > I think that pretty well closes the case. Let's call this a decision and > move forward from it - any objections or concerns? I already have NetBSD on two systems. I'm slightly ahead of you. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message