Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current

[Warner Losh <imp%bsdimp.com@localhost>]

On Oct 26, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Alistair Crooks wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Izumi Tsutsui 
>> <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)?
>>>>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node?
>>>> 
>>>> hw.machine_arch
>>>> 
>>>> which has been defined for a long long time.
>>> 
>>> Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and
>>> you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic)
>>> without public discussion.  That's the problem.
>> 
>> It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32).
> 
> Whether or when it's dynamic or not, it would be great if you could
> fix it so that binary packages can be used.
> 
> And Tsutsui-san is right - public discussion needs to take place, and
> consumers made aware, before these kind of changes are made.

I don't see any further emails on this thread. Was there ever a resolution, or 
just crickets?

Warner