The following reply was made to PR port-macppc/29655; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Havard Eidnes <he@netbsd.org>
To: tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp
Cc: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, tsutsui@NetBSD.org,
	port-macppc-maintainer@NetBSD.org, netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.org,
	gnats-admin@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: port-macppc/29655 (macppc cd-rom image build does
 notcreatebootable cd-rom)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:03:00 +0200 (CEST)

 > > Well, it's quite a bit more than doing a "build.sh ... release"
 > > and follow that with "build.sh ... iso-image", which is what I
 > > can do for i386.  ...plus using src/distrib/cdrom introduces
 > > local changes in my source tree, which must be re-done if I want
 > > to do this for another port.
 >
 > My point is:
 > Why do we have to maintain two independent infrastructures
 > (src/etc/etc.* and src/distrib/cdrom) for the same iso target?
 
 My point is that they fill different purposes.
 
 One produces single-architecture images (preferably bootable,
 which started this discussion), while the other is set up to
 produce multi-architecture images, some of the images bootable on
 multiple architectures, and can currently not produce single-
 architecture images without local modification of files we keep
 in our CVS repository.
 
 > Isn't it better to modify src/distrib/cdrom/Makefile etc.
 > to handle iso-image target of build.sh?
 
 Maybe.  So far that hasn't happened, though, and compared to the
 src/etc setup, it's a whole lot more complicated.
 
 Regards,
 
 - H=E5vard