In article <01071311533700.08283@pinky.paradox.demon.co.uk>
chris@paradox.demon.co.uk writes:

> > I'm being annoyed for a month, but I cannot see where is the goal,
> > so I don't know what is the right fix.
> 
> I would ask why you didn't say so sooner?  I only started looking into this a 
I asked matt why include files in arch/cats/include were removed,
and then he answered "with arm, we trying a new technique."
I'm just waiting it done for a month.

> I believe that the aim of all this is:
> That any arm binary should run on any arm architecture, without caring what 
> kernel it's on.

Currently, any {mipsel,mipseb,m68k,powerpc,sh3el} binary run on
any {mipsel,mipseb,m68k,powerpc,sh3el} archtecture.
So that is not a reason to introduce "a new technique."

> > Anyway, how many people know the current status of these changes?
> > Is there any discussion _before_ these changes were done?
> 
> status of which changes?  I've not committed any changes to userland yet to 
> do with getting the builds going.

I meant these changes:
- usr/include/machines points to include/arm, not include/${MACHINE}
- creating /usr/include/arm/${MACHINE} directories
- arch/arm/conf/Makefile.arm creats ${COMPILEDIR}/include/${MACHINE}
  and ${COMPILEDIR}/include/machine directories
etc. 

I think any chaneg of framework like this should be done
among the all archtecture.

> > IMHO, if machine/param.h can be shared,
> > these ports did not have to be split.
> 
> It can't be shared fully, eg bin/ps needs NBPG which is different on arm26 
> and arm32, so this maybe a case of a sysctl to return it.

For NBPG, sun4 and sun4[cm] machines have different NPBG,
but they are in a common port.
---
Izumi Tsutsui
tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp