I wrote:
> > >>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
> > >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
> > >>
> > >> hw.machine_arch
> > >>
> > >> which has been defined for a long long time.
> > >
> > > Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
> > > you have changed the def
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
>
> >>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
> >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
> >>
> >> hw.machine_arch
> >>
> >> which has been defined for a long lo
> >>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
> >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
> >>
> >> hw.machine_arch
> >>
> >> which has been defined for a long long time.
> >
> > Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
> > you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynami
On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
>>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
>>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
>>
>> hw.machine_arch
>>
>> which has been defined for a long long time.
>
> Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
> you have changed
On Oct 25, 2:20pm, Mouse wrote:
}
} > Generally speaking, SCA SCSI drives are hot-swap capable.
}
} Sure...but the drive bays aren't necessarily. For example, the drive
} bay in a SS20 probably isn't; you can't even get to it without removing
} the lid, so there'd've been little reason for Sun t
> > By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
> > If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
>
> hw.machine_arch
>
> which has been defined for a long long time.
Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic)
without public discussion
On Oct 26, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
hw.machine_arch
which has been defined for a long long time.
> As described in
> http://gnats.netbsd.org/48193
> and
> http://gnats.netbsd.org/48215 .
>
>
> pkg_add on NetBSD/evbearm*hf fails with, for example,
>
> pkg_add: NetBSD/earmv6hf 6.99.23 (pkg) vs. NetBSD/earm 6.99.23 (this host)
>
> error.
>
> What is solution?
> This problem discourages my pk
Hi,
As described in
http://gnats.netbsd.org/48193
and
http://gnats.netbsd.org/48215 .
pkg_add on NetBSD/evbearm*hf fails with, for example,
pkg_add: NetBSD/earmv6hf 6.99.23 (pkg) vs. NetBSD/earm 6.99.23 (this host)
error.
What is solution?
This problem discourages my pkgsrc development on Ras
