Re: directory structure
On 24 Nov 1999, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Re: the problem at hand
> > Does this accurately address all the issues.
> > (Note: I'm not trying to write something suitable for public
> > consumption, I just want to cover all the bases)
> Yes -- although I have some issues with your terminology.
> >  A "platform" is defined by the microprocessor (or processor family)
> > that is used in a computer. (alpha, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc)
> >  An "architecture" is defined by the microprocessor and supporting
> > integrated circuits that are used in a computer. If a platform has
> > only one architecture, there will be no "architecture" directory.
> I don't know if these terms are right. I think  is both platform
> and/or architecture. I've been using 'subarchitecture' for . I
> don't know if there is a better term for that.
"Platform" comes from the software world, "architecture" from
the hardware world, both mean pretty much the same thing in their
respective worlds... at least that's how it was when I was building
circuits for 8-bit boxes, beats me what the current situation is
(although I suspect there are a few different i386 architectures out
there, but since you are dealing with software - it's a single
I would say that  is misusing "platform".
I'll have a look at the terminology on the web site, tomorrow.
> Attached is the resulting tree that I came up with for sparc. I
> haven't had any comments from the sparc folks so this is provisional.
I was wondering if you would do this,
put them in the first "disks" dir and use symlinks,
or just drop them in the top dir.