From owner-freebsd-sparc Wed Jan 19 15:52:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc@freebsd.org Received: from fdy2.demon.co.uk (fdy2.demon.co.uk [194.222.102.143]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B21C1534A for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:52:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs@fdy2.demon.co.uk) Received: (from rjs@localhost) by fdy2.demon.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00378; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:58:32 GMT (envelope-from rjs) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:58:32 GMT Message-Id: <200001192158.VAA00378@fdy2.demon.co.uk> From: Robert Swindells To: mtempel@visi.com Cc: freebsd-sparc@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <000901bf62c6$760aa900$49ec62d1@dirac> (mtempel@visi.com) Subject: Re: Sparc Port -- sounds good to me Sender: owner-freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mark Tempel wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:12:06AM -0600, John Sconiers wrote: >> > Quick question....shouldn't we start with NetBSD.....I'm under the >> > impression that OpenBSD's port _IS_ NetBSD's port with a few bug fixes and >> > stronger security and starting from NetBSD would be easier?? >> >> OpenBSD was that 2.5 years ago. Think how much FreeBSD has changed in >> that time -- that is how much OpenBSD has diverged from NetBSD. >> >> Personally I would suggest NetBSD because /usr/pkgsrc/cross/ might >> provide a better starting point at the cross toolchain. >> >I would suggest NetBSD. This is because the alpha port was done >from a NetBSD base, and we could (hopefully) leverage the knowledge >gained from that port in our efforts. I would be more likely to try to help if it were based on NetBSD as well. I already run it on a StrongARM system and was planning on using the same source tree for my SS2. Robert Swindells To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message