Subject: Re: Suggested change to README.html generation: tables for binaries
To: None <mcmahill@mtl.MIT.EDU>
From: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
Date: 11/08/1999 20:35:49
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Christoph Badura wrote:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > >amiga:
> > ^^^^^
> > > 1.4 mpg123-0.59q
> > > 1.3.3 mpg123-0.59o
> > > 1.3 mpg123-0.59k
> > Err, I thought all our m68k platforms were binary compatible. i.e.
> > amiga, hp300, sun3 etc. should all be in one category: m68k
> > Same for our mipseb and mipsel platforms.
Do we keep track of this in any particular place? Some simple way to
derive MACHINE_ARCH from MACHINE, even? I don't like the idea that
bsd.pkg.mk (or any other random tool) needs to know the ins and outs
of binary compat for all platforms (though I realize it already knows
about m68k in a few places).
That said, I'm going to get back to futzing with this, hopefully
making a more non-table-happy version. Someone in this thread talked
about making tables that render gracefully as non-tables; I'd
appreciate suggestions on practical ways of doing that.
>oh, yes. Perhaps the line should read
I'd do this more like:
amiga, hp300, mac68k, next68k, sun3 (m68k architecture):
to make it easier for those less well versed in processor
compatibility and our exploitation of such to find things.