Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:09:36 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org Subject: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) Message-ID: <332E4DC0.6455@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <199703180108.SAA08717@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree > > > > > > Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > > > > I don't know why, perhaps they like building their things the old way > > (that is not too different), anyway if they'd wanted it, they could have > > adopted it long ago, like OpenBSD did. > > Ports tree; not build tree... > Is this the typical "if I can't beat him confuse him" strategy? I've been saying ports tree from the start. > > The VM, as John Dyson has pointed out in the past, is not irretrievably > architecture specific. I don't believe there is a technical issue at > all... I have had FreeBSD's VM code working on Alpha and, more recently, > PPC hardware, with only minor changes. > I have also heard that, it is not 386 specific, but rather "FreeBSD specific", you're right, but I haven't heard of anyone using FreeBSD's VM under NetBSD (did you?). > My challenge can be restated as: > > "provide conclusive technical arguments pro divergence" > > I maintain that there are no good technical reasons for divergence, > only political ones. > I agree with you, please don't asume things I haven't said, specially if you can't see me while we are communicating. I say it's just the way the world works (I don't like it either): it's faster for both parties to implement what they lack, than to convince the two teams to unify, in fact we now have three teams! Of course, it would be very stupid from myself not to admit that we need to modify our tree following the NetBSD example (BTW, IMO, the best time to do it is ASAP, can someone illustrate me on what are the clear objectives behing 3.0-current ?). But we should protect our evolved code (LKMs and devices) from being swapped because another OS has a prettier structure than ours. > > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?332E4DC0.6455>