| 1 |
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> While cleaning up the Darwin and Solaris profiles, I noticed that there |
| 5 |
> is some redundancy in masks (necessary) due to the structure based on |
| 6 |
> single inheritance: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> <os>/<release>/<arch> |
| 9 |
> e.g. |
| 10 |
> darwin/10.4/ppc |
| 11 |
> darwin/10.4/x86 |
| 12 |
> darwin/10.5/ppc |
| 13 |
> darwin/10.5/x86 |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Most e.g. masks in the ppc dirs are specific for the CPU, and not really |
| 16 |
> bound to the OS release. So I propose the following structure: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> <os>/<arch> |
| 19 |
> <os>/<release>/<arch> (inherits from .. and ../../<arch>) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> This way a single mask can e.g. apply to all PPC versions of Mac OS X. |
| 22 |
> Similar for Solaris' sparc, sparc64, x86 and x64. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Does this make sense, or am I missing something obvious? Better ideas? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> (note that I (hopefully) kept full backwards compatability with this scheme) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Like: |
| 29 |
darwin/ppc/10.4 |
| 30 |
darwin/x86/10.4 |
| 31 |
darwin/ppc/10.5 |
| 32 |
darwin/x86/10.5 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Is that how you are planning to do it? Because I think that makes the |
| 35 |
most sense. If you look at linux/ - they are linux/<arch>/ (they skip |
| 36 |
the <release> because it isn't needed) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Do also realize that this applies to *all* profiles, not just darwin |
| 39 |
and solaris. Windows look like the only ones that won't need changing |
| 40 |
because linux. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-Jeremy |
Archives