[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, T. Makinen wrote:
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.
On a 4MB machine I suspect you're best off with BOOT (or
SMALL030 if its renamed). BOOTX is 1976K vs 1719K (256K
bigger), which is a fair chunk of 4MB...
David/absolute -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --
Main Index |
Thread Index |