On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 11:40:48PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:31:11AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > I insist we should officially support upgrading from X.any to X+1.0-R,
> > minimally.
> You need to either get concensis from arch@ or core@ then.
I first plan to making this true for X=4, then bringing the issue
on arch@ (as I think it is more appropriate in this context than

> > This actually doesn't affect only cross-arch case, the subject is wrong.
> > It affects any arch with HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT > HOST_BITS_PER_LONG e.g.
> > alpha.  Forget about 4.x for a moment and imagine you have a pre-atoll(3)
> > 5.0-CURRENT alpha (atoll(3) was committed on 2001/11/28).
> If this is true, then I agree we have a problem.  I'll look into it.
OK, just as an aside, I've been able to produce an Alpha 5.0-CURRENT
release on my SMP 4.5-STABLE i386 box with this and the other (well,
you know, the MD_EXEC_PREFIX thing) patch yesterday, plus some already
committed fixes for release/Makefile.

Ruslan Ermilov          Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]           Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]          FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251        Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org  The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com   Enabling The Information Age

Attachment: msg38362/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to