[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: 80386 support
> 1. It really probably is best to think of "small machines", be they
> old or not, as "embedded" targets to some degree, particularly if one
> wants to run any significant portion of NetBSD on them. That does
> mean cross-compiling, of course, but that's trivial to do these days.
Best? By what metric?
For the sorts of purposes for which I'd consider running NetBSD, if it
can't self-host, it's broken.
> 2. Memory and storage requirements for small systems is still
> _really_ low if you want to go to some slight effort.
...and don't care about more than booting and maybe running a couple of
> [...7M bootable image...12M ramdisk...]
A 12M ramdisk (plus the kernel) isn't my idea of "_really_ low". My
idea of "_really_ low" is more like 2M.
> So, I would suggest that all excuses about NetBSD not still building
> for, and running on, tiny machines are just that: excuses.
This sounds a lot like a variant of "my value of `satisfactory' is good
enough for everyone".
> Use a cross-compile host like any other tiny/embedded systems target
> must do and all will be A-OK.
Only for those for whom having to always cross-compile *can* be A-OK.
> [[ I do wish dropping i386 support had properly triggered a rename
> such that the "i386" port name was dropped at the same time and a
> more meaningful acronym were chosen instead, [...]. It should never
> be too late to fix such an egregious error.]]
With this, I agree.
In particular, resurrecting 80386 support as a separate port (which I
think I saw mentioned upthread) is rather difficult with the obvious
port name already in use by a port it no longer really applies to.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |