On Friday, 20.05.2016 at 09:10, Hannes Mehnert wrote:
> >> The rationale behind this structure is threefold:
> >>
> >> 1) It has explicit contracts defining which interfaces each layer
> >> provides/depends on. Further, by not providing a separate "posix" package,
> >> we discourage adding more C c
On 19/05/2016 15:10, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On 19 May 2016 at 11:00, Martin Lucina wrote:
>> The current structure of mirage-platform for Xen (the only non-UNIX target)
>> looks like this, in dependency order with leaf packages omitted:
>>
>> minios-xen: Mini-OS kernel
>> mirage-xen-minios: Ope
On 19 May 2016 at 11:00, Martin Lucina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Together with Dan Williams we're working on getting the Mirage/Solo5
> bindings into mergeable state. Part of this process is figuring out what
> the structure for mirage-solo5 (the "platform bindings") and its
> dependencies should be.
>
> T
Hi,
Together with Dan Williams we're working on getting the Mirage/Solo5
bindings into mergeable state. Part of this process is figuring out what
the structure for mirage-solo5 (the "platform bindings") and its
dependencies should be.
The current structure of mirage-platform for Xen (the only non
