Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

I 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).
> 
> Then you also changed hw.machine_arch implementation but
> didn't notice MACHINE_ARCH in <machine/param.h> at that time?
> 
> You proposed MACHINE_ARCH removal later, but
> you have never answered my question in that thread.

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2013/10/26/msg048721.html

>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By:        matt
>> Date:        Sat Oct 26 18:07:52 UTC 2013
>> 
>> Modified Files:
>>      src/sys/arch/arm/include: param.h
>> 
>> Log Message:
>> Use CPP symbols to determine the right MACHINE_ARCH

Matt, you have changed your mind and committed different fix
without posting any messages to tech-* mailing list.
Please stop that.

Please post whole your strategy first before random bandaid fixes.
You have not answered about other sf/hf ports like mips and sh.

---
Izumi Tsutsui