Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:20:13 -0800 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". Message-ID: <20030128182013.A13422@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030129021406.GD1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>; from marcel@xcllnt.net on Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 06:14:06PM -0800 References: <20030128120830.A81856@FreeBSD.org> <20030128225335.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128151749.A831@FreeBSD.org> <20030128235528.GA844@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128160936.A4252@FreeBSD.org> <20030129004006.GA945@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128164955.A7369@FreeBSD.org> <20030129013537.GB1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128174259.A10304@FreeBSD.org> <20030129021406.GD1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ] > > No, we have not established that. > > *sigh* > > Is the problem space 2D or 3D? Define your terms better. I could argue the number of axes very easily, and you could come back and argue against them. > > We attach lots of meaning to MACHINE. You keep missing that that > > is NOT the same as the "machine" keyword. > > And you keep missing that I don't assume that it cannot be made the > same. That's why I ask about meaning and that's why I want things > to be discussed on an abstract level. OK. Well, if you make them the same, you are hacking up an existing thing to mean something vastly different, which IMO is ugly and full of repetition, and wholly un-flesible. Unless you propose to create <platform> based on MACHINE in the MACHINE_ARCH != MACHINE case anyway, and use that, there is now even more duplication and obfuscation that must be done to e.g. the headers. > > It is, however, the same > > as the "platform" keyword. > > You also fail to see that the consequence of adding platform is > beyond the mere recognition of the keyword. Only when the > problem space is 3D, do you need to add a new entity for sure. > If the problem space is 2D, you may be able to solve it with > the existing knobs. Yes, this may mean that you may have to > stop using it for whatever purpose (right or wrong) it's used > now. I don't want to change the meaning of machine, the two things are orthogonal, but because the name is similar you want to callesce them. I want to add a new paradigm of FreeBSD ports, as well as the mechanism to do this, based on what I want to do, and the fact that it makes sense to Benno. We're just providing a set of quirks, and that should be something that fits in nicely as an addition. And it does, and it stays out of the way of things that do not need it, and provides IMO the cleanest design. Thanx, juli. -- Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnet OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030128182013.A13422>