Subject: Re: NetBSD on the BeBox?
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@BALVENIE.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 12/16/1995 00:22:48
> We should be careful when embarking on a ppc porting effort to _name_
> things correctly. [ ...]
> For powerpc ports, I'd suggest a naming scheme like the following:
> sys/arch/ppc Generic powerpc code, a'la sys/arch/m68k
> sys/arch/be A "Be" port, uses ppc code
(Why not beppc, or something similar? they may make another system
> sys/arch/mvmeppc Motorola MVME ppc cards
> sys/arch/macppc Power macs
> ... etc ...
> It's arguable that current ports should have been named better:
> sys/arch/i386 -> sys/arch/i386pc
actually, it'd say pc386 (a la pc532), or at386 (as i think i've seen
it referenced in the past, though that's a bit antiquated now...)
> [ ... ] But, when that day comes, we should be building into
> obj.m68k, rather than obj.sun3, obj.amiga, obj.mvme68k, etc. This might
> be as simple as making a new set of make environment variables, like
> USROBJMACHINEARCH instead of USROBJMACHINE. But, then again, I'm not the
> make(1) guru. :-)
and a teensy bit of hacking on 'make'...