On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:03:22PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > Is there something in your recent work that prevents sun4v from compiling > and hence justifies disabling it entirely, and hence guaranteeing it won't > compile in the future because it falls off the "make it compile" radar? If > so, then a policy decision to drop sun4v support may be called for -- but > this is something to discuss with the people who added support for the > architecture, the release engineering team, etc, and not to make > unilaterally.
When I added sun4v to universe back in 2006, I had hopes that it would live up to it's early promise. Adding it back then was premature. I guess you could say I made a unilateral decision back then. :-D The last time I checked, the sun4v port wouldn't even boot on my T2000, so I have to ask if there is anyone who even knows that. Or cares. Just keeping the code compiling is not good enough. It has to actually work. I haven't removed any support for building sun4v. I just think that the few people who do build universe shouldn't have to wait for a dead port to build. -- John Birrell _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
