Re: DragonFly x86_64 won't boot on qemu-kvm

[John Marino <dragonflybsd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/16/2013 04:48, Chris Turner wrote:
> ... and while I'm at it - this [Bug#2561] + Bug#2133, etc.
> seem like excellent examples of the 'why keeping >=2 platforms going is
> a good idea'
> argument.
> </soapbox>

I need to first point out that nobody is saying there are not benefits 
to having multiple platforms.  The alleged issue that is the liability 
of a particular platform outweighs its benefits.

That said, I am not following your logic here.
Bug #2561 was against x86_64, the platform that would stay.  What's the 
benefit of i386 being present?  The possibility of using it instead? 
Would that also be an option if the 2nd platform were based on ARM?

With bug#2133, again the feature only works on i386.

A main point of contracting i386 would be all development would 
concentrate on x86_64, so the types of bugs described in #2561 and #2133 
are discovered and fixed more quickly.

While I'm not denying there are benefits of multiple platforms for 
platform abstraction purposes, I'm not seeing how >= 2 platforms helps 
here, other than "This platform is broken, use the other one instead". 
If that's the benefit, I'd rather just fix x86-64 issues.

John