Todd Whitesel <toddpw@best.com> writes:
> But on next68k and sun3 I ended up building the entire distribution
> on two different machines, only to have large chunks of them chucked
> by symlink merges on the FTP site. AFAIK no analysis is done to actually
> prove that the binaries were in fact equivalent; we're just relying
> on proof by construction based on a design we believe is still clean.

Sure.  This is a bug.

In fact, there _are_ known differences between the ports, so the exact
same binary sets probably won't just work 100%.



> Right now I have my CATS system build all of arm32, and the SHARK is a
> stable server. If you break up arm32, then I have to use both of them for
> builds (much of which will be wasted), and it will become nontrivial for
> me to build A7000 or RISCPC or VOYAGER. It would help if we could somehow
> develop a method for doing cross-builds in the reduced case where host and
> target have the same MACHINE_ARCH.

same MACHINE_ARCH is not even a cross build.  it's a native build.



> So to me, splitting up arm32 means more bits being crunched per release,
> with negative real benefit. It would not be hard to make sysinst DTRT
> when installing kernels on arm32 systems.

these are artifacts of existing bugs.  if you want to make the world a
better place, you have to push it in the right direction and help fix
the bugs.  propagating the existing buggy system is not a plus.


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.