Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: kmacy@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dropping sun4v as a platform Message-ID: <201105102048.p4AKmrie028076@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <mit.lcs.mail.freebsd-arch/BANLkTi=_GQKh1cSedgfN%2BmfQfGMj3LtTSQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <mit.lcs.mail.freebsd-arch/BANLkTimUpeESJcHN75Vd=gZdXZzA5QPz-g@mail.gmail.com> <mit.lcs.mail.freebsd-arch/20110510184844.GA17227@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <mit.lcs.mail.freebsd-arch/BANLkTi=_GQKh1cSedgfN+mfQfGMj3LtTSQ@mail.gmail.com> you write: >I volunteered to remove it from the tree some time back knowing that I >wouldn't have the time to work on it and that no one else had the >inclination to pick it up. Keep in mind that removing it doesn't bar >someone from bringing back support at some time in the future, it just >removes the misconception that it is in some way supported. On the other hand, it's a sufficiently weird platform in various ways that having FreeBSD at least be compile-tested on it from time to time is not a bad thing. Newer manycore architectures are likely to be more similar to sun4v on many ways than they are to amd64. On the gripping hand, if there are not enough interested people to maintain the platform, then there probably won't be enough interested people to fix the compile when it breaks, either. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201105102048.p4AKmrie028076>