Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

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.

Thanks,
Alistair