From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 26 17:24:48 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F24907 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:24:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from werner@thieprojects.ch) Received: from newton2.metanet.ch (newton2.metanet.ch [80.74.158.131]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EA5CF3 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 13195 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2013 18:24:46 +0100 Received: from 217-071-083-008.ip-tech.ch (HELO ?192.168.11.88?) (217.71.83.8) by newton.metanet.ch with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 26 Mar 2013 18:24:46 +0100 Message-ID: <5151D9DB.7050001@thieprojects.ch> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:24:43 +0100 From: Werner Thie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: RFC: "Crochet" build tool References: <5DFA61DB-70E4-4C3D-ACA0-995A175706C8@neville-neil.com> <5151B454.9090402@ceetonetechnology.com> <1CBF1416-3237-4DCE-8D61-7E998265C887@neville-neil.com> <1364311809.36972.27.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <5151D045.80305@thieprojects.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:24:48 -0000 On 3/26/13 5:51 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > .. these are orthogonal problems. > > NanoBSD being too hard or not. > > Whether there's a shared cross-platform image builder in -HEAD. Or > heck, even just a unified one across ppc, mips, i386/amd64, arm. > > But these are _two separate problems_. They don't go hand-in-hand. > They are only going hand-in-hand right now because they're too > confusing for people. But you can fix or replace nanobsd in the base > so it can build cross-build targets. > > My stuff is separate from -HEAD primarily because I haven't yet sat > down and finished making it build a UFS image without needing root > privileges. Once that's done, I'm going to integrate it into either > nanobsd or tinybsd. What's the rationale behind having not one, but TWO xxxBSD? Do we start third one like the usual proliferation in OpenSource sometimes dubbed progress? I always prefer learning about "I don't understand it, so let's roll my own", but the whole xxxBSD learning process was simply too much for me, having ARM boards sitting on my desk for weeks, instead of being able to simply build an image. The question must be reformulated: Is nanoBSD or tinyBSD fit as basis for a cross platform effort? I assume the one doing it, also does the chosing, but I'm in no position to do so with my failed effort to get a grip on nanoBSD. Werner