[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: configuration
From: |
OKUJI Yoshinori |
Subject: |
Re: configuration |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:37:57 +0900 |
From: Ali SHEIKH <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: configuration
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:09:40 -0500
> I am not an expert, but I think that Farid's virtual kernel idea might
> be a way out. If we can come up with a a libvk that is generic enough
> to encapsulate all microkernel interfaces, then we can just go ahead
> and call our system *-*-gnu, without worrying about what ukernel it is.
Hm, that is one of the things I want to hear. ;)
Do all of you agree that the basic idea should be to construct a
generic but yet powerful layer and rewrite Hurd on the top of the
microkernel-independent layer? But don't forget that GCC still has
some predefinitions of Mach. We need to consider (1) simply getting
rid of them, (2) replacing them with generic ones (e.g. -DMOM), or (3)
still defining microkernel-specific constants, to allow to implement
microkernel-dependent features.
BTW, what is the difference between libmom and libvk? I think it is
just what you want to call them. For me, MOM is a better name, because
this is an existing English word. :)
Okuji
- configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/02
- Re: configuration, Ali SHEIKH, 2000/11/02
- Re: configuration,
OKUJI Yoshinori <=
- Re: configuration, Ron Farrer, 2000/11/03
- Re: configuration, Niels Möller, 2000/11/06
- Re: configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/07
- Re: configuration, Niels Möller, 2000/11/08
- Re: configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/10
- Re: configuration, Niels Möller, 2000/11/13