Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

From: Warner Losh <imp%bsdimp.com@localhost>, Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:05:01 
-0700

> 
> 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?

Hi,

It seems that this commit solve the problem.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2013/10/26/msg048721.html

But no explanation and feedback yet.

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3