> Markus Wild spoketh:
> >Well, although this might sound evil, I'd like to make the serious
> >vote: *don't* go 64bit! This is one of the (few) pets taken over from
> >4.4 that *I* don't want in NetBSD. Now, what are we going to do? I simply
> >don't think voluntarily introducing a MAJOR compatibility drawback to
> >older software (on both the source and binary levels) is a bad thing, more
> >so since this introduction doesn't give us anything new in exchange. Why
> >should anyone need 64bit file sizes on a system like the amiga? Why do
> >you want quad-arithmetic all over the place, for nothing? This is not
> >really meant to be a flame, but it probably is..  (BTW: just because it's
> >in 4.4 is no reason for me to not question it...)
> 
> As an option, this is fine, as a default, I don't think that would be a good  
> idea.  Growing the kernel size, plus making it slower, is not that good of a  
> "benefit".  Since a lot of the machines that we want to eventually support do  
> not have an FPU, this would make it viciously slower (it's bad enough that  
> the current binaries are compiled for the FPU (to the best of my knowledge),  
> which I think shouldn't be since they are the default binaries, but that's my  
> own nit).  Basically, I want to keep the general attitude of "you do with  
> your own kernel and binaries what you want", but for the default stuff, it  
> should be small, fast, and not require a lot to get it going.  Does this seem  
> too dictatorial?
> 
	The > 2G drives are rapidly coming down in price. I can see within a
	year where it would be possible to need such a thing.

	As far as size bloat, how about waiting to see what it actually is?
	Not everything uses off_t type...

	Let's see what the actual result is before throwing it out.

	I personally am against changing the default on something this
	fundemental vs the other NetBSD ports. This is supposed to be
	NetBSD after all. Will we also not add in the other 4.4 changes
	that all the other ports will have (and will no doubt add bloat to
	the kernel)? If it's to be called NetBSD then it should have all the
	features and functions that all the other ports have. If not then
	start a new BSD, like the FreeBSD and 386BSD people have.
	
	Maybe we should just call a spade a spade and remove the amiga section
	from NetBSD and create our own version of BSD? If this port isn't going
	to integrate the NetBSD code in all the other ports then why call it
	NetBSD?

		-Rob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------