In article <20040507091358.GB8226@antioche.lip6.fr>
bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr wrote:

> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 10:31:15AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 10:28:01AM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> > > Would it be wise to make that "xen" for 'uname -m'?
> > > Or will it need adjusting in too many pkgs etc. which expect "i386"?
> > 
> > Will there be any difference in userland between xen and i386?
> 
> There isn't (or shouldn't be) any differences between amiga and mac68k either,
> isn't it ?

In general, 'uname -p' should be used for binary compatibility
and 'uname -m' should be used for MACHINE specific stuff
like sys/arch/${MACHINE} etc.

But i386 has some diferrence from m68k ports: 
- arch/i386 directory contains both MACHINE_ARCH specific and
  MACHINE specific files.
  (this makes it difficult to integrate other i386-based ports)
- Many 3rd party apprications for i386 assume MACHINE == MACHINE_ARCH
  because uname(3) returns MACHINE, not MACHINE_ARCH.
  (i.e. there are few binary apps for m68k)
---
Izumi Tsutsui
tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp