Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:38:06 -0500 From: "Lyndon Griffin" <lgriffin@naviant.com> To: "freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Sparc board, and clones Message-ID: <002e01be131a$332765d0$71e2f4cd@tchaikovsky.naviant.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That was not my point - maybe I wasn't very clear. If it takes two separate ports, then so be it. My point is, if there are going to be two separate ports, lets take the necessary measures to separate them now - for instance, create a new mailing list called freebsd-oldsparc so that those of us that are not particularly interested in the Ultra port can still be productive in our own right. <:) L -----Original Message----- From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mestery@winternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 12:31 PM To: Lyndon Griffin Cc: Christoph Haas; Alfred Perlstein; Paolo Di Francesco; freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Sparc board, and clones You are missing the entire point, which is not to disclude older Sparcs. The point is they are essentially an entirally different port altogether than an Ultrasparc port. Look at NetBSD's recent Ultra port, it's got it's own source directory and everything. They two, while the may share some similaritires, are vastly different, and would be separate ports. So please everyone, stop complaining about supporting the older Sparcs with this port. What we have is basically two separate ports that would happen. -- Kyle Mestery StorageTek's Storage Networking Group To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002e01be131a$332765d0$71e2f4cd>