--NQqDiQVflaif2hna
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:21:49PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > I don't think anybody would argue that the easiest way to get
> > support for nubus macs into the tree is in a separate port. Whether
> > or not that eventually merges with macppc is something that can be
> > dealt with later.
> ?? I think there was a typo above.

I don't, but I'll restate what I think I'm saying there just to be
safe:

I was under the impression that the easiest, initially, to support
the PDM/nubux/x100/whatever PowerMacs was to create a separate port
for them which would be a Frankensteinian combination of mac68k bits
and macppc bits. This would be just to get things going. Then,
later, that would be merged with the existing macppc port (should
that seem practical).

I'd thought I was rehashing something I'd seen discussed
previously... was I mistaken?

> Ask Jason. He was going to play with this at one point.

Okay.

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--NQqDiQVflaif2hna
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjxDd0wACgkQ9ehacAz5CRp2RQCglcx5pAVGJa3kqf7gKZ/3gHzi
t3cAn1drhZJ1z7aAyBmpLY3ndFITxZYw
=uqof
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NQqDiQVflaif2hna--