>
> I understand perfectly. Yes, our motivations are different, and yours are the
> strongest or at least the most practical ones. Such a difference will not be
> a
> problem as long people won't promise anything that they can't deliver, and
> i've
> payed much attention to not commit this error myself.
>
Well, I haven't had any problems with motivations yet. I just wanted
to make clear what mine are. Very practical ones, yes :-)
>
> I think that the SNI thing, expecially under your point of view, is very
> good.
> It is a germany based company and it shows as collaborative. Marketing
> chances
> for theyr machines are much higher than for hybrid MIPS/PC we are hacking
> just
> now, that are ~4 years old.
>
It should also be important for you all. Not that a port to the SNI baby
would make Linux/MIPS run better on a Magnum, but the project would get
attention. That's important.
> You're probably right, and there is another problem: being the SNI a totally
> different machine as i think is, the only common part among ARC compatibles
> and
> SNI will be the (cross) developement env. and some higher level compatibility
> layer, like libc, excutables and the ABI. This is very important stuff, we
> can't really do anything without it. So my call is for:
> 'A freezed devel. env. that works'.
> I will release my gcc 2.7.0 binaries and libc 4.something UNLESS some serious
> known bug prevents to do so. Then we can schedule the next release to let's
> say
> four months. This will give to the people that work on it all the time to add
> new features, fix the bugs, and release a comprensive source/binaries
> package.
> I want to say my opinion about binaries distributions here. They are GOOD. A
> great point of force for Linux is they large availability. Basically they
> allow
> a fresh hacker, let's somebody that isn't yet very skilled about gnuism, unix
> code and stuff, to gradually approach the system and it's complexity. Not
> everybody is fascinated by the 'tools to make tools' paradigm, at least not
> at
> the very starting point of a project.
>
100% agreed. A rule for releasing binaries should also be that binaries
should work on a broad range of Linux installations. That is (and I will
get kicked for this again): a.out is to be preferred. I've nothing
against ELF and Linux-1.3.x. But I cannot afford the downtime to move
to 1.3., at least not now. And I don't have a spare box to play with.
>
> HOLYDAYS! .... apart jokes, if you feel you have to pass hand, it's ok. I'm
> sure you will keep contributing to the whole. Let's find another working
> model
> if not another coordinator, this is the place to talk about it, and this is
> the
> time to do it. Comments, please.
>
It's not the case that I really want to change my responsibilities, I just
ask if someone wants that. I'd really prefer if some of the hackers
around Ralf would hack the SNI port so that I can continue to keep
things moving where they seem to slow, and to stop things where they
seem to go in a wrong direction.
This afternoon I'll see Ralf and two other guys that are interested in
the SNI port. Let's see what happens...
Cheers,
Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Busse | andy@soft-n-hard.de
Soft N Hard GbR | Phone: +49 2636-970105
Im Hufen Boden 16, D-53498 Waldorf | Fax: +49 2636-970106
-----------------------------------------------------------
|