At 01:03 AM 7/13/2001 +0900, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
>I move this thread from port-arm to tech-kern, because this is not arm
>specific issue. Please remove port-arm on follow-up.
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:25:28 +0100,
>         Chris Gilbert <chris@paradox.demon.co.uk> said:
>
> > I have just thought of one way around it, we have an arch and a platform
> > symlink inside the arm dir, eg:
> > /usr/include/arm
> >       acorn32
> >       arch -> arm26|arm32
> >       arm26
> >       arm32
> >       cats
> >       dnard
> >       netwinder
> >       platform -> acorn32|arm26|cats|dnard|netwinder
>
>No.
>/usr/include/arm/platform shouldn't exist,
>And /usr/include/machine should point /usr/include/${MACHINE},
>if arm ports follow the current NetBSD standard.

The point is to *not* follow the standard.

>If you are thinking about directory hierarchy which are shareable
>on same ${MACHINE_CPU}, you should use platform independent
>mailing list rather than port-arm for the discussion.

Depends.  I'm not sure I agree.

>I think arm ports should revive /usr/include/machine, at least until
>consensus is made.

I disagree.  arm is currently the test case and leaving it as is will
cause us to find the problems and address them.
--
Matt Thomas               Internet:   matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry      WWW URL:    http://www.3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA             Disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message