Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:51:24 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". Message-ID: <20030129025124.GG1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20030128182013.A13422@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030128225335.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128151749.A831@FreeBSD.org> <20030128235528.GA844@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128160936.A4252@FreeBSD.org> <20030129004006.GA945@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128164955.A7369@FreeBSD.org> <20030129013537.GB1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128174259.A10304@FreeBSD.org> <20030129021406.GD1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128182013.A13422@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 06:20:13PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ] > > > No, we have not established that. > > > > *sigh* > > > > Is the problem space 2D or 3D? > > Define your terms better. I could argue the number of axes very > easily, and you could come back and argue against them. So far you have defined the problem as a 2D problem and I have not argued with that. You're getting extremely incomprehensible... > > > We attach lots of meaning to MACHINE. You keep missing that that > > > is NOT the same as the "machine" keyword. > > > > And you keep missing that I don't assume that it cannot be made the > > same. That's why I ask about meaning and that's why I want things > > to be discussed on an abstract level. > > OK. Well, if you make them the same, you are hacking up an existing > thing to mean something vastly different, which IMO is ugly and > full of repetition, and wholly un-flesible. Ok, if making them the same means that we're changing the meaning of machine, then clearly you know what the meaning is now. Please tell me. > Unless you propose to > create <platform> based on MACHINE in the MACHINE_ARCH != MACHINE > case anyway, and use that, there is now even more duplication and > obfuscation that must be done to e.g. the headers. I did not propose anything yet. I'm trying to understand what it is you're talking about. At the same time I'm trying to avoid defining the problem in terms of the proposed solution so that I can validate that there is a problem, whether the solution you proposes addresses that problem and see if other solutions exist that solve the problem so that we can find the best alternative. > > > It is, however, the same > > > as the "platform" keyword. > > > > You also fail to see that the consequence of adding platform is > > beyond the mere recognition of the keyword. Only when the > > problem space is 3D, do you need to add a new entity for sure. > > If the problem space is 2D, you may be able to solve it with > > the existing knobs. Yes, this may mean that you may have to > > stop using it for whatever purpose (right or wrong) it's used > > now. > > I don't want to change the meaning of machine, the two things are > orthogonal, but because the name is similar you want to callesce > them. Again: what does machine mean to you. To what is it othogonal and with what do you think I want to coalesce it that has a similar name? > I want to add a new paradigm of FreeBSD ports, as well as > the mechanism to do this, based on what I want to do, and the fact > that it makes sense to Benno. Good. What is the new paradigm? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030129025124.GG1016>