svn commit: r227536 - in head: release share/man/man7
kensmith at buffalo.edu
Thu Nov 17 14:44:56 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:34 +0000, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:31, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >>>> Kinda gross but "FBSD-9.0-RELEASE-amd64-amd64-bootonly.iso"?
> >>> Can't we use one if they are equal?
> >> I'd prefer consistency. [...]
> > But it looks so plain stupid!
> I've had someone ask me what amd64-amd64 meant when I pointed them as the RC announcement. I replied that I had no idea and suggested that possibly RE had been handed over to the department of redundancy department. Having read this thread, I can now confidently say... that I still have no idea.
> But (with my compiler-writer hat on) please tell me that we're not inventing yet another incompatible form of target triple. We have at least twice as many as we need already...
This is the problem we are trying to "solve":
kim 1 % cd /usr/src
kim 2 % make targets
Supported TARGET/TARGET_ARCH pairs for world and kernel targets
kim 3 %
We currently only do formal builds for a sub-set. But as time goes
on who knows... We could, for now, settle on just either `uname -m`
or `uname -p` so we only have one "name". But note that's only possible
for 9.0 because pc98 builds aren't being done. If we choose a scheme
that doesn't cause a conflict between the two powerpc builds we're doing
for 9.0 (powerpc and powerpc64) then if pc98 ever comes back we will
have a conflict between i386 and pc98.
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith at buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodor Geisel |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20111117/875c4bc0/attachment.pgp
More information about the svn-src-all