From: Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com>, Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:05:01 -0700
> > 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? Hi, It seems that this commit solve the problem. http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2013/10/26/msg048721.html But no explanation and feedback yet. -- Ryo ONODERA // ryo...@yk.rim.or.jp PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3