Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:13:39 +1000 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: mjacob@feral.com (Matthew Jacob) Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, jbarbee@singular.com, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: future of slpha port Message-ID: <199806022213.IAA21579@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199806022148.OAA06351@feral.com> from Matthew Jacob at "Jun 2, 98 02:48:55 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Jacob wrote: > Yes, I'd like to actually finally say that it's a great shame > that FreeBSD and NetBSD are different efforts- the NetBSD alpha > effort is in quite good shape- and I've been somewhat reluctant > to try and duplicate this for FreeBSD. Is there any way the > FreeBSD port can import the extremely solid NetBSD/alpha work? I would prefer that the machine dependent parts of the kernel keep compatibility. IMO, the userland area is where the two projects have a different focus, and therefore a different userbase. My personal opinion is that NetBSD and FreeBSD should be merged, but I accept the fact that there are reasons why that can't happen. For serveral years I've had to effectively support two user-land interfaces (headers and libraries) in order to be able to use FreeBSD/i386 and NetBSD/Alpha. As it stands now, I only have one. FreeBSD's source tree successfully builds with a NetBSD syscall interface in libc. I guess I am now treating NetBSD/Alpha as a kernel, and yes, that _is_ extremely solid thanks to cgd, Jason and yourself (amongst others). -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806022213.IAA21579>