[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:04 AM, 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?
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.
Main Index |
Thread Index |