M. Warner Losh wrote:
If this is a long way of saying 'we should list it on the main page,' I agree. :-)
I kinda wish that the marketting group had picked up on my message to them about this several months ago. But yes, there should be mention on it on the front page, and there should be at subsection of the website that describes and documents it.
One thing that the project will need to define in the coming months is what to do about embedded architectures. ARM is approaching Tier 1 status for an embedded system as work progresses. Others will no doubt one day follow.
I hinted in the grandparent email that the support model for ARM, and presumably other embedded architectures, is necessairly different. Since there is no universal platform, it's hard to provide development, test, package building, QA, and security reference systems to the project. Thus, the concept of tiers that we've applied thus far doesn't really fit. I know that there has been discussion about having a tiered tier system, but I think that that doesn't really answer the underlying questions, and only ads more confusion. If you say that ARM is "embedded tier-1", what does that mean for developers who work in the MI/MD intersections of the system? Also, what does that phrase mean to the end users? Does it mean that only a small selection of AT91 systems are Tier-1, does it mean that the ARM9 ISA is Tier-1, etc? I do prefer to describe ARM support as a framework, and not in terms of the guarantees of service that 'tiers' are supposed to represent. Scott _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
