On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:05:55AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > > Make sure of what? > > Make sure TNF & I (as a 3rd party engineer using NetBSD) do things right. So, let me get this right. You're building your own binary distribution of NetBSD, and your own binary patches. And still you want to inflict a lot of work to TNF and its members so that you can check that the binary patches you produced are bit-identical to the one TNF produced? > > And how will they be bit identical if what you > > change in your compilation are optimisation options? > > We all know binary distribution users have no control of compiler > optimisation. > > If TNF once decide to distribute binary patches, I'll consider to use thier > official libc.so and/or netinet.kmod. I and any other reasonable 3rd party > users won't change libc.so's signature unnecessarily. Otherwise we don't > benefit from TNF's binary patches. My opinion, as a member of TNF, is that TNF shouldn't care about other binary distributions of NetBSD, and if I were to build my own binary distribution of NetBSD, I'd produce my own binary patches. TNF has two kind of users: binary users and source users. It's perfectly acceptable to build binary patches for both, but why should TNF care about hypothetical hybrid users? Right now TNF isn't even properly taking care of its binary users, and you want to skip that and make TNF follow your own agenda? > > Flexibility is nice, but tying knots with your own limbs is just creepy. > > Who said like that? It seems to me that I am the one saying that. I remember typing it, so it's no accident that it appeared in the mail. > We all know binary distribution is restrictive. Yes. So why complicate things? -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Description: PGP signature