Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:28:58 -0500 From: George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org, postmaster@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: freebsd-arm description? Message-ID: <41B13191-0D41-4EA8-BBCE-3E6A440EF90A@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <1385414670.1220.21.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <D8D11C17-21CE-4F90-BC6E-7991BC6B21F2@freebsd.org> <7DCF72F0-4072-46DD-A3F7-F33FC10055E9@neville-neil.com> <1385414670.1220.21.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 25, 2013, at 16:24 , Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 16:07 -0500, George Neville-Neil wrote: >> On Nov 25, 2013, at 16:05 , Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> = wrote: >>=20 >>> According to this page: >>>=20 >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm >>>=20 >>> =93[This mailing list] is for individuals actively working on >>> porting FreeBSD to the StrongArm Processor.=94 >>>=20 >>> How do we change that to something a bit more accurate? >>> (I=B4ve recently heard from someone who passed over >>> this mailing list because they didn=B4t think it applied to >>> more modern ARM processors.) >>>=20 >>> Maybe: >>>=20 >>> =93This is a technical mailing list for people working to >>> develop and support FreeBSD on various ARM >>> processors and SOCs.=94 >>>=20 >>=20 >> +postmaster@ >>=20 >> I think they can do this. >>=20 >> Best, >> George >>=20 >=20 > It might be better to say "systems" or "computers" in place of SOCs. > Our focus historically has been on the chip/SoC, but increasingly ARM > processors are finding their way into off-the-shelf retail computers. I think if we leave off =93and SOCs=94 we=92ll run the correct gamut. Best George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41B13191-0D41-4EA8-BBCE-3E6A440EF90A>