[sorry -- dropping in the middle of the thread] On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:08:30PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > > This approach is a really bad one architecturally, in my opinion. It means > there is a lot of duplication of what may all be VERY similar, and it means > that if we had say 5 platforms supported by the MIPS port (certainly this is > not a high number at all) that means there would be 5 directories under > src/sys... And none of them would be "mips" since we wouldn't be supporting > any hardware called "mips", that's just the general architecture.
I tend to agree. > I just really would like things to be clean, and abstracted, and not waste > anyone's time. Why should we have to duplicate so much code? I'm not sure platform is the answer. We already have the distinction between MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE and it looks to me that MACHINE can do what you try to achieve with platform. Why add a "platform" keyword to config(8) if we already have the "machine" keyword? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
