On 24 June 2015 at 23:38, David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:01:24PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
I agree that evb* is confusing and increasingly meaningless and
would like to see us transition away from it.
I contend that moving to sys/arch/cpu
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:05:07PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
- allow finer grained machines or platforms so I can have
./build.sh -m rpi do the right thing
It allows aliases, so this would probaly a one line change (though
you'd still get more build than only the RPI kernel).
Allowing the
David Holland writes:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:48:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:58:34PM -0300, Leandro Santi wrote:
A quick look at build.sh shows that one of the first things that
needs to be done is to map the MACHINE name to the CPU architecture
On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Jeff Rizzo r...@tastylime.net wrote:
On 6/24/15 7:13 AM, matthew green wrote:
David Holland writes:
I think keeping evb* for boards makes sense, though.
i dunno.
i don't see what it adds. in particular, evb means evaluation
board, and there are heaps of
I agree that evb* is confusing and increasingly meaningless and would
like to see us transition away from it.
I contend that moving to sys/arch/cpu is incorrect which there are
multiple MACHINE values for that CPU. sys/tem/mips (haha!) or
sys/platform/mips (yuk) or sys/arch/cpusys or
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:01:24PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
I agree that evb* is confusing and increasingly meaningless and
would like to see us transition away from it.
I contend that moving to sys/arch/cpu is incorrect which there
are multiple MACHINE values for that CPU.
On 6/24/15 7:13 AM, matthew green wrote:
David Holland writes:
I think keeping evb* for boards makes sense, though.
i dunno.
i don't see what it adds. in particular, evb means evaluation
board, and there are heaps of things in evb* that are *not*
evaluation boards, but stuff that might have
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:48:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:58:34PM -0300, Leandro Santi wrote:
A quick look at build.sh shows that one of the first things that
needs to be done is to map the MACHINE name to the CPU architecture
name, i.e.
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:58:34PM -0300, Leandro Santi wrote:
A quick look at build.sh shows that one of the first things that
needs to be done is to map the MACHINE name to the CPU architecture
name, i.e. MACHINE_ARCH. I noticed that some ports set
MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH, but some others
On May 1, 2015, at 10:53 AM, David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:48:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:58:34PM -0300, Leandro Santi wrote:
A quick look at build.sh shows that one of the first things that
needs to be done is
10 matches
Mail list logo
