On Tuesday, 05.05.2015 at 11:19, Antti Kantee wrote: > Do we want to keep the name "app-tools"? AFAIR, it was coined (by > Ian?) before we'd really settled in on other terminology. Is simply > rumprun-tools better?
I have no opinion. It's more of an "internal" name and seems as good as any. > I'm a bit unhappy with "baremetal". It's long and not very > descriptive. At least we'll get rid of the extra "bmk" term, which > is good, but a better term for "baremetal" would be nice to invent. How about just "metal" ? > >Where <kernel+userland> is currently "netbsd", i.e. the existing "native" > >value is re-used for this field. > > Should that be "netbsdelf" for i386 (and other NetBSD targets which > originally used a.out)? Yes. > >I'd like to get the renaming done ASAP, so if anyone has objections to > >the proposed scheme please speak up now! Final call :-) > > How many real programs have you tested the scheme with? I've tested incomplete, hand-made wrappers using this scheme with our "configure" test and AFAIR also PHP but that was some time ago. I will do a more thorough test and try and find some software that runs native binaries during the build before committing anything. I will also add in functionality to generate "Toolchain" files for CMake and test with MySQL. These should make software using CMake also just work (assuming cross-compilation support in the build system). Martin
