On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:17:49PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-01-28 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ] > > > I just really would like things to be clean, and abstracted, and not waste > > > anyone's time. Why should we have to duplicate so much code? > > > > I'm not sure platform is the answer. We already have the distinction > > between MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE and it looks to me that MACHINE can > > do what you try to achieve with platform. Why add a "platform" > > keyword to config(8) if we already have the "machine" keyword? > > Because that requires us to do what pc98 does, which is to have the > meta-port be the master port, and include up into the arch-port, and > that means that either you have every header in the arch-port be > wrapped by the meta-port, as <machine> is the meta-port, or you just > copy everything and make local changes.
I'm sorry, you use implications I don't see to come to a conclusion I don't get: Start with the beginning: We have MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE. Can you represent the problem you're seeing with MIPS with two entities, namely MACHINE_ARCH and MACHINE? If yes, how exactly do these entities need to be defined in that case and how do they relate to each other. If no, explain why you need more entities to capture the problem. No implementation details please. Subsequent questions (if required) will be posted based on the answer given to this one. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
