Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:03:36 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [RFC] splitting of conf/NOTES Message-ID: <20030224100336.GB21088@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <3E59E8F4.884C9160@mindspring.com> References: <20030224001644.GA67255@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030224120037.D4403-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20030224023118.GD67312@dragon.nuxi.com> <3E59E8F4.884C9160@mindspring.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:42:12AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> > I doubt bt(4) will work on sparc64, PowerPC, or IA-64. So do people want
> > all that's in NOTES.bt (and that's a lot of docs) to be duplicated three
> > times in sys/{alpha,i386,pc98}/conf/NOTES or split out as I have??
>
> What they probably *want* is for bt(4) to work on sparc64, PowerPC,
> or IA-64. 8-) 8-).
ia64 is designed to promote migration. If bt(4) has no PC legacy
stuff, it's very well possible that such a device may end up in
an ia64 eventually (I'll do it just to make my point :-)
> What they should probably *get* is per machine exceptions, via
> "nodevice", which are then correctable on a case by case basis,
> instead of having to be corrected globally for all the platforms
> all at once.
Isn't that's like voting for spam because people can install
filters? or like an opt out mailing list: remove yourself if
you think you're exceptional?
Isn't it also more related to kernel config files where we list
devices when we want to add support for them, not to list devices
we don't want to support?
--
Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030224100336.GB21088>