Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:48:47 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: amd64/159222: unusual behavior writing boot0 from single user mode Message-ID: <4E315AAF.5060801@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110727234605.GB684@lonesome.com> References: <201107270622.p6R6MCae086774@red.freebsd.org> <4E301315.1070501@FreeBSD.org> <20110727234605.GB684@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 28/07/2011 02:46 Mark Linimon said the following: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:31:01PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> Why then did you pick amd64 as a category? > > IMHO it's not Tim's problem; the categories are just misnamed. > > One of these months I'm going to get out of ports-land and get back onto > the topic of "PR system". In whatever the next PR system is, there will > be a "hardware-specific" category or something similarly named. There > will not be any of the following: i386; amd64; www :-) > > (The latter will be "website".) > > It's not fair to blame our users for the drawbacks of the tool we give > them. I actually blamed not users but "us", but it was well disguised :-) I agree with you about amd64 and i386. I think I remember times when amd64 was warranted, when the architecture port was fresh and had genuine amd64-specific bugs and missing features. But now these are an extremely rare kind (comparing to total number of base OS bugs). I further agree with you that making users determine which subsystem is responsible for a bug is not a good approach. So until we have better bug reporting and management tools perhaps we could provide more clues to users in the current tools... Squeezing amd64 and i386 into kern could be done already, I guess. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E315AAF.5060801>