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 core@.)
> > 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. Cheers, -- 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
msg38362/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
