Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture

From: "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>
To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture
Date: 1999-06-14 00:50:50
Message-ID: v04020a16b38a009ddd50@[137.78.84.130]
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

At 8:39 AM -0700 6/12/99, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>I reverted back the patch for include/storage/s_lock.h and seems
>NetBSD/m68k port begins to work again.
>
>I think we should revert back the linux/m68k patches and leave them
>for 6.5.1. Objection?

I would like to support linux/m68k, but on the Mac 68K platform the NetBSD
folks are more numerous. Unless linux outnumbers NetBSD on some 68k
platforms other than Mac (and I think Amiga) I don't think you should break
a (mostly) working port in order to support a less widely used one.

Just my $0.02.

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h(dot)b(dot)hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov, or hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-06-14 01:03:31 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture
Previous Message Henry B. Hotz 1999-06-14 00:39:23 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-06-14 01:03:31 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture
Previous Message Henry B. Hotz 1999-06-14 00:39:23 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture