In message: <20100317171648.gd7...@hoeg.nl>
Ed Schouten writes:
: * M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > I agree with John this is too fine grained. We don't currently have
: > this data for the removals, just when we did. And it isn't clear that
: > our users could easily find this data eithe
* M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I agree with John this is too fine grained. We don't currently have
> this data for the removals, just when we did. And it isn't clear that
> our users could easily find this data either, even if we
> dumpster-dived the repo for it.
I do think the same, but maybe in th
In message: <20100317085004.gb7...@hoeg.nl>
Ed Schouten writes:
: * M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > Under your plan, which __FreeBSD_version would we use here?
:
: Well, the idea is that it's monotone. The lower you set the value, the
: more rubbish you get.
I agree with John this is too
* M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Under your plan, which __FreeBSD_version would we use here?
Well, the idea is that it's monotone. The lower you set the value, the
more rubbish you get.
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgpQUZOnM72a4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 13 March 2010 02:19:32 pm M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20100313170725.gw8...@hoeg.nl>
>
> Ed Schouten writes:
> : * M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > that sounds like a good idea. But it isn't as simple as changing all
> : > the COMPAT_FREEBSDX in the .c code. There's
In message: <20100313170725.gw8...@hoeg.nl>
Ed Schouten writes:
: * M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > that sounds like a good idea. But it isn't as simple as changing all
: > the COMPAT_FREEBSDX in the .c code. There's also hooks in the syscall
: > glue generation that would be affected.
:
* M. Warner Losh wrote:
> that sounds like a good idea. But it isn't as simple as changing all
> the COMPAT_FREEBSDX in the .c code. There's also hooks in the syscall
> glue generation that would be affected.
Hmmm... Indeed.
I thought a bit more about this and I realized it would be better if
In message: <20100313090844.gv8...@hoeg.nl>
Ed Schouten writes:
: * Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
: > COMPAT_FREEBSD32 is an unfortunate choice. It can be easily
: > interpreted as "compatible with FreeBSD 3.2".
:
: That's no problem, since COMPAT_FREEBSD%d was already a misnomer. I
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Rui Paulo wrote:
There's a lengthy discussion about this on another mailing list.
This is unlikely to be changed and emailing the committer who provided
valuable time on this code wastes his time and everyone else's.
So the user - the person to whom the software is made
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 03:30:08AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:53:46PM -0300, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
> > Thanks God we have you, the holy committers to protect us from our
> > own ignorance.
>
> Please remember that in most cases, FreeBSD committers do so merely
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:53:46PM -0300, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
> Thanks God we have you, the holy committers to protect us from our
> own ignorance.
Please remember that in most cases, FreeBSD committers do so merely for
the feeling of a "job well done". Rhetoric like this takes away pa
* Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
> COMPAT_FREEBSD32 is an unfortunate choice. It can be easily
> interpreted as "compatible with FreeBSD 3.2".
That's no problem, since COMPAT_FREEBSD%d was already a misnomer. It
would have been a lot better if it were replaced by a numerical
definition:
options
On 13 Mar 2010, at 11:53, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Rui Paulo
wrote:
On 12 Mar 2010, at 21:36, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
Author: nwhitehorn
Date: Thu Mar 11 14:49:06 2010
New Revision:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:52:27PM +0900, Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2010, at 21:36, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn
>> wrote:
>>> Author: nwhitehorn
>>> Date: Thu Mar 11 14:49:06 2010
>>> New Revision: 205014
>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/c
Quoting Nathan Whitehorn (from Fri, 12 Mar
2010 08:19:00 -0600):
This name was picked for the following reasons, after discussion
with several others: it is analogous to the existing COMPAT_LINUX32,
the
Datapoint:
COMPAT_LINUX is native (64bit on 64bit arch, 32bit on 32bit arch) emulati
Quoting Rui Paulo (from Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:52:27 +0900):
On 12 Mar 2010, at 21:36, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
Author: nwhitehorn
Date: Thu Mar 11 14:49:06 2010
New Revision: 205014
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Rui Paulo writes:
Carlos A. M. dos Santos writes:
COMPAT_FREEBSD32 is an unfortunate choice. It can be easily
interpreted as "compatible with FreeBSD 3.2". Something like
"COMPAT_32BIT" would be more meaningful.
This is unlikely to be changed and ema
Rui Paulo writes:
> Carlos A. M. dos Santos writes:
> > COMPAT_FREEBSD32 is an unfortunate choice. It can be easily
> > interpreted as "compatible with FreeBSD 3.2". Something like
> > "COMPAT_32BIT" would be more meaningful.
> This is unlikely to be changed and emailing the committer who provide
On 12 Mar 2010, at 21:36, Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
Author: nwhitehorn
Date: Thu Mar 11 14:49:06 2010
New Revision: 205014
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205014
Log:
Provide groundwork for 32-bit binary compatibility
Author: nwhitehorn
Date: Thu Mar 11 14:49:06 2010
New Revision: 205014
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205014
Log:
Provide groundwork for 32-bit binary compatibility on non-x86 platforms,
for upcoming 64-bit PowerPC and MIPS support. This renames the COMPAT_IA32
option to COMPAT_F
20 matches
Mail list logo
