On Oct 26, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Alistair Crooks wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote: >> >> On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui <tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp> 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 definition (i.e. make it dynamic) >>> without public discussion. That's the problem. >> >> It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32). > > Whether or when it's dynamic or not, it would be great if you could > fix it so that binary packages can be used. > > And Tsutsui-san is right - public discussion needs to take place, and > consumers made aware, before these kind of changes are made.
I don't see any further emails on this thread. Was there ever a resolution, or just crickets? Warner