In message: <7d6fde3d1003111720g7dccf93w1f51db88758a5...@mail.gmail.com> Garrett Cooper <yanef...@gmail.com> writes: : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Scot Hetzel <swhet...@gmail.com> wrote: : > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Mike Jakubik : > <mike.jaku...@intertainservices.com> wrote: : >> On 3/11/2010 9:50 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: : >>> : >>> As a result of importing 32-bit compatibility support for non-x86 64-bit : >>> platforms, the kernel options COMPAT_IA32 has been renamed COMPAT_FREEBSD32 : >>> in revision 205014, so all kernel configurations including this option must : >>> be modified accordingly. : >>> : >> : >> That sounds a bit confusing, compatibility with FreeBSD 3.2? : >> : > I agree that the name COMPAT_FREEBSD32 is confusing, does it mean : > compatiblity with FreeBSD 3.2, FreeBSD 32 or 32-bit ARCH's. : > : > A better name would have been COMPAT_ARCH32 or COMPAT_32BIT_ARCH. : : Agreed. Is it possible to change the name again because it really : hasn't gotten much traction yet?
What does the name matter, really? This will be documented, and mirrors the kernel source compat/freebsd32. Put another way: if everybody that's going to comment on the name would instead fix one bug from the PR database with the time they spend commenting on it, would FreeBSD be better or worse off than spending dozens of hours arguing over COMPAT_X32 vs COMPAT_Y32 vs COMPAT_FLYING_MONKEYS? Warner _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"