Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

[Philip Blundell <pb@labs.futuretv.com>]

In message <[🔎] 20000801075152.H17632@willow>, Chris Rutter writes:
>onto modules; for this reason, it seems we need a system like m68k, where
>we'd have /etc/modutils/arch/arm.{netwinder,acorn,...}.

Yes.

>If both the A5000, RiscPC and later hardware can all be accommodation under
>one set of modules, I would propose making the sub-architecture simply
>`acorn', denoting all hardware derived from 32-bit Acorn ARM machines.
>However, this possibly may not be the case; how about `a5k', `medusa', and
>then other aliases files for whatever weird and wonderful hardware Castle
>are dreaming up (`mico', `riscstation')?

Let's stick with just `acorn' for now and see what happens.  I think 
Archimedes/A680/A5000 can certainly share one set of modules.  RiscPC 
obviously needs different ones but confusion should be minimal - call them 
`acorn32' if you like.

>What about the Footbridge platforms?

They can all share a kernel and modules.

p.