Subject: Re: pkg_install
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Reilly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/02/1997 08:59:09
On 1 Oct, Erik E. Fair wrote:
In relation to ports...
> The depth of our binary distribution problem depends on how optimized we
> want to be. As a first cut, we need binaries for:
> (and some that I've forgotten)
> but life gets more interesting when one considers more processor specific
> code generation, e.g. 68020? 68030? 68040? 68060? v7 sparc? v8 sparc? 386?
> 486? Pentium? Pentium Pro? Pentium II?
> Sounds like we need a new post: port-package-master (someone for each port
> to build the packages)
> It gives us an interesting M x N problem. 9GB disks are getting cheaper,
> and there is ccd...
Sounds like NetBSD would be the first group to get significant bennefit
from a working ANDF. Has anyone considered something like a new GCC
target for something like an extended JVM or Amsterdam Compiler Kit
stack machine (or even "generic assembler: C")? Then you'd only need
one distribution and a back-end that includes a compiler/optimiser of
sorts. Of course this isn't going to help for things like ocaml and
kaffe, that know about a few specific architectures, but could work for
more general applications.
Can't see the point myself, when distribution by source works so well,
and you end up with the source code...
"The steady state of disks is full."
-- Ken Thompson