On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 19:59 +0000, John Birrell wrote: > 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 >
FWIW, to anybody with time+interest, you can get these things on-loan for free from Sun Microsystems as part of their try-and-buy program. So, if anybody wants to turn the sun4v into a pet project, Sun has greased the wheels a bit for you already. The specs on these systems look impressive, I just didn't have the time to mess with it when I tried. I still get pings every few months from a Sun rep... -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part