Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)

[David Brownlee <abs%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

        Actually, regarding kernel naming suggestions...  Why do
        we have a BOOTX at all? When does it make sense to use
        BOOTX instead of ATARITT or FALCON? I can understand BOOT
        as its for a minimal memory machine, but if you have
        more memory or an 060 you should be using ATARITT or FALCON

        I'd actually suggest renaming BOOT to SMALL030 or similar
        to more accurately represent what it is...

        If we get rid of BOOTX then the only shortname conflict is
        with netbsd-MILAN-PCIIDE.gz and netbsd-MILAN-ISAIDE.gz...

        What do people think?

--
                David/absolute       -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --