Subject: Re: Suggested change to README.html generation: tables for binaries
To: None <mcmahill@mtl.MIT.EDU>
From: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 11/08/1999 20:35:49
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Christoph Badura wrote:
> > 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 (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
>m68k (amiga,hp300,mac68k,sun3):

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. 

        - Nathan