Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option

To: Quentin Garnier <cube%cubidou.net@localhost>
Subject: Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
From: Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:30:05 +0000

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:56:03PM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote:

> Modules as a mean to save kernel size is a red herring anyway.

I disagree because GENERIC is too fat to boot on my 486!

Andrew

Follow-Ups:
- Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
  - From: Michael van Elst

References:
- Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
  - From: Brian Buhrow
- Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
  - From: Christos Zoulas
- Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
  - From: Andrew Doran
- Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
  - From: Quentin Garnier

Prev by Date: Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
Next by Date: Re: openoffice2-bin-2.4.1nb1 failing to start in -current
Previous by Thread: Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
Next by Thread: Re: i386 and the COMPAT_50 option
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index