[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 1:49 AM, David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost>
> 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...
True. There's no much reason to keep BOOTX floating around.
Main Index |
Thread Index |