On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Simon Burge wrote:

> > >No, it's not part of 1.4. 1.4 doesn't support the PMAG-CA. More on this in
> > >a few days.
> > 
> > Which is a good point to congratulate Andy for the sterling effort
> > he's put into supporting these undocumented cards and improving
> > graphics-console perforance in general. Thanks, Andy!
> 
> Seconded!

When I was a kid, the teacher used to stick gold stars on the copybook
when you did good. Sorta feel like that now :) - thanks folks.

> > At one point Andy and I kicked around the idea of including a PMAG-C
> > patchkit (for 1.4) with the 1.4 distribution. I guess that's what
> > we'll hear about in a few dayhs.

In case I gave the wrong impression, all the boards w/i860 are supported
for console operation. No interrupts, no X.

I have 2 days left in .ie. It might take a couple of months to get one of
my DECstations and a sufficient portion of my Pile of Stuff (as JT calls
it) over to .uk, so, after xsrc is tagged, I will add Xpxpmax to the tree.
I'll try to cure a few of the more pressing problems in the next day.

> > I'd be happy to even include binary kernels in misc/, for those who
> > have PMAG-Cs and who want to install NetBSD (since to build patches
> > you'd have to install in the first place, which means monkeying around
> > with hardware or finding a serial terminal).  The patches would be
> > clearly and unmistakably marked as UNSUPPORTED software, though.

Maybe we can ship Xpxpmax as unsupported too?

> > (They depend on rather extensive retructuring of the rcons blitting
> > code, and those missed the 1.4 cutoff deadline).

> I'll plan on doing this.  Please yell and jump if I don't include a
> -current GENERIC kernel in installation/misc.  Hmm, do we want an
> install kernel that understands the PMAG-C?  That could start to get
> messy.

Hmm. An INSTALL kernel would be nice, no? Do we want -current, or patched
1.4 kernels?

Andy.