Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)

["T. Makinen" <tjamaloo%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:04 AM, David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
>        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?

BOOTX is smaller and does not use RELOC_KERNEL. I'm not sure
how well FALCON or ATARITT kernel works with 4MB machine ?

I can't come up with any other reasons why we should keep it.

-Tuomo