Subject: Re: [Fwd: a proposal for next major (5.x)]
To: Garrett D'Amore <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/07/2006 22:01:41
> email@example.com wrote:
> >> I do have other opinions, of course. Like wtf is pdp10 doing in sys/
> >> since it can't even build much less boot (and never has been able to do
> >> either of those), but that's a different issue.
> > Where should it be kept then? And what is your problem? I doubt
> > space in the CVS tree is any concern.
> Its the amount of time dealing with things like output from grep, and
> find, etc. And, should, for example, we have to sustain MI hacks for
> this platform, if it can't boot? I don't think that is the right
> answer. I think if a platform is in src, it should have at least one
> real user, and be able to build and boot to a shell. Otherwise the code
> has no value to the _project_.
MI hacks for any platform should preferably not exist, but that's
another issue. And if you think grep etc. takes too long time to
execute I would say that it is a cheap prize to pay to get this support.
> > And at least for me it both compiles and boots (up to the point that
> > the root filesystem should be mounted).
> Certainly not with ./build.sh then. I'm surprised to hear you say it
> boots, I cleared several panics from inittodr and company the other
> day. But then again, this is code that would get called _after_ root is
> mounted. If you can't mount a root filesystem, then I would argue you
> aren't booting.
Gcc and the gnu tools don't support this platform and is unlikely to
ever do in a reasonable manner. There are a separate toolchain to
compile the system. And I don't feel to try to define "boot" :-)
The root file system issue is a challenge though. Finding a way
to use a 32-bit filesystem on a 36-bit hardware :-)
> > I think it's of benefit of the project to be able to support older
> > architectures (obviously as opposed to your opinion).
> Do we actually "support" pdp10? Or is this just still a project in
> incubation? If you can't get to a single user shell on any system,
> then I contend we don't "support" this platform at all.
I reference to that probably more than 50% of all archs we have are
extinct by now, but they are still important. That is one of the
things that splits out NetBSD from all other OSes - the ability to
run on any hardware, both new and old.
This also have the side effect of forcing the developers to think
some extra time before implementing something, so that it works on
all hardware and not just what's on the desks this year.