On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:34 +0000, David Chisnall wrote: > On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:31, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > >>>> Kinda gross but "FBSD-9.0-RELEASE-amd64-amd64-bootonly.iso"? > >>> > >>> Can't we use one if they are equal? > >> > >> I'd prefer consistency. [...] > > > > But it looks so plain stupid! > > I've had someone ask me what amd64-amd64 meant when I pointed them as the RC > announcement. I replied that I had no idea and suggested that possibly RE > had been handed over to the department of redundancy department. Having read > this thread, I can now confidently say... that I still have no idea. > > But (with my compiler-writer hat on) please tell me that we're not inventing > yet another incompatible form of target triple. We have at least twice as > many as we need already... > > David >
This is the problem we are trying to "solve":
kim 1 % cd /usr/src
kim 2 % make targets
Supported TARGET/TARGET_ARCH pairs for world and kernel targets
amd64/amd64
arm/arm
arm/armeb
i386/i386
ia64/ia64
mips/mipsel
mips/mipseb
mips/mips64el
mips/mips64eb
mips/mipsn32eb
pc98/i386
powerpc/powerpc
powerpc/powerpc64
sparc64/sparc64
kim 3 %
We currently only do formal builds for a sub-set. But as time goes
on who knows... We could, for now, settle on just either `uname -m`
or `uname -p` so we only have one "name". But note that's only possible
for 9.0 because pc98 builds aren't being done. If we choose a scheme
that doesn't cause a conflict between the two powerpc builds we're doing
for 9.0 (powerpc and powerpc64) then if pc98 ever comes back we will
have a conflict between i386 and pc98.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensm...@buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodor Geisel |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
