Ben Rockwood wrote: > John Sonnenschein wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jim Walker <James.Walker at sun.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Shawn Walker wrote: >>> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Cyril Plisko <cyril.plisko at >>> mountall.com> wrote: >>> >> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > "Alternate platform" community group? Or perhaps "Hardware porting"? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> IIRC, in the previous round of there was suggestion to call it >>> >> "Platform porting" >>> >> or similar. I think it is a good one. >>> > >>> > Platform is also often associated with the underlying OS. From what I >>> > understand, this group is about porting the same "platform" (OS) to >>> > multiple architectures. >>> > >>> > "Platform Architecture" anyone? :-) >>> >>> I like "Platform Porting" community. >>> >>> The current PowerPC community could become a sponsored project >>> instead of a community. >>> >>> I don't want it to get it confused with the software >>> Architecture Process and Tools CG. >>> >>> >> I know that Gentoo just calls the entirety of the non-ia32/amd64 >> community the Alt community ( Gentoo/Alt ) ... >> >> Why not something like the "Alternative Architecture" CG? >> >> >> > > > Technically, each platform should be a Project of the single Porting CG. > > > benr. >
If you define "platform" as "ISA"(-ARCH), exactly: sparc, i386, amd64, ppc-le, ppc-be, ??? ... will all be children if it is going to be implemented logically. Therefore it would just add an additional parent layer to all existing projects and communities. While being opensolaris.org's top (and only direct) sub-child. But for what? p.s. On SPARC every workstation-, server- or telco- model is called a "platform". So it is a weak term that can be stretched endlessly and then interpreted in different ways, as pointed out earlier by others. IMO an unnecessary discussion, hot air. Proposals for what to port would be more useful, what, why, how and when. %martin
