Subject: re: stand/.../newvers.sh
To: Simon Burge <simonb@telstra.com.au>
From: matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
List: tech-kern
Date: 04/06/1999 12:08:35
The only rebuttal against this I can think if is that it reduces the
amount of code we can share between ports (say sparc & sparc64, pmax
and newsmips, m68k*). Given the nature of the programs we are talking
about, this may not be a sound argument. If you can offer even the
flimsiest of arguments against that one (and mrg doesn't counter-strike)
then I'll drop bootprog_name[] ;-)
i assume chris means that you can put this information in
the program itself? i do kinda like bootprog_name[] as it
is in the sparc port right now. but i'm not that worried
about it all...