On 4/20/06, Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Alan Ritter wrote:
> > On 4/20/06, Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:52:19PM -0700, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> > > > I cross-compile i386 kernels on other architectures all the time;  =
I
> > > > agree with others here who've raised the "this sounds like a build =
tool;
> > > > it should be available on all architectures" argument...
> > >
> > > I agree with this part.
> >
> > OK, it sounds like it's pretty unanimous that ndiscvt should be built
> > on all architectures.  In order to do this would I just need to move
> > ndiscvt from distrib/sets/lists/base/md.i386 to mi like so (should I
> > commit this)?  Or maybe I should hold off until it is decided if
> > ndiscvt should be built as a tool or not?
>
> I don't really see how there is any deciding required -- nor any holding
> off, this close to the 4.0 branch point.
>
> If a program is required in order to build kernels for any port, that
> program must be *both*:

It's not "required" to build i386 kernels, just if you want to have
support for an NDIS device.

> A) Built and installed into the build system as part of the system build,
>
> and
>
> B) Built and installed as a build tool as part of the tools build.
>
> What exactly are we waiting for, then?

OK, so I should just add it as a tool, and in the distribution of all
architectures then?