On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:42:59PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ] > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > > > > > So, given that we have MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE already to our > > > > disposal, I don't get the feeling that we are in need to add > > > > something else because the problem space appears 2D, not 3D. > > > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > That's what I'm trying to do, in a clean way. See my "short version" > > > message, if you like. > > > > Ok. Now that we've established that the "platform" keyword is not > > needed, is there any meaning we attach to MACHINE that conflicts > > with the meaning it must have in order to solve the mips/powerpc > > problem? Or do we not attach a certain meaning to MACHINE that we > > should attach to it? > > No, we have not established that.
*sigh* Is the problem space 2D or 3D? > We attach lots of meaning to MACHINE. You keep missing that that > is NOT the same as the "machine" keyword. And you keep missing that I don't assume that it cannot be made the same. That's why I ask about meaning and that's why I want things to be discussed on an abstract level. > It is, however, the same > as the "platform" keyword. You also fail to see that the consequence of adding platform is beyond the mere recognition of the keyword. Only when the problem space is 3D, do you need to add a new entity for sure. If the problem space is 2D, you may be able to solve it with the existing knobs. Yes, this may mean that you may have to stop using it for whatever purpose (right or wrong) it's used now. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
