Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:36:11 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Two Junior Kernel Hacker tasks.. Message-ID: <200106242036.f5OKaBV91200@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:48:27 PDT." <20010624004826.C27083@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20010624004826.C27083@dragon.nuxi.com> <XFMail.010622105201.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200106221842.f5MIgaV58508@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010624004826.C27083@dragon.nuxi.com> hackers@FreeBSD.ORG writes:
: Which is another good reason for sys/compile/${MACHINE}/FOO
: Otherwise where DOES the pc98 kernel builds happen? Under the
: non-existant sys/pc98/ ?
David, a simple ls to sys/pc98 shows that it is populated with lots of
files.
% ls ~/FreeBSD/src/sys/pc98
CVS apm conf i386 pc98
So that's not an argument against it.
: > With powerpc, we are going to have a lot of different ports ala
: > i386/pc98 (that have the same MAHINCE_ARCH, but different MACHINE) if
: > NetBSD is any indication.
:
: Even more data that IMHO makes sys/compile/${MACHINE}/FOO make more
: sense.
Actually, I don't think it argues in favor of
sys/compile/${MACHINE}/FOO at all. *ALL* ${MACHINE} ports must have a
sys/${MACHINE} in the current scheme. That's by definition.
I also think that as we get more and more ports for power pc, we'll
see more people that need/want to do cross compiling or having one
tree for multiple ports.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106242036.f5OKaBV91200>