Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:11:22 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S Message-ID: <20041018201122.GB34236@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <41741F6E.90600@freebsd.org> References: <200410181719.i9IHJa9l097436@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041018173516.GB89681@ip.net.ua> <20041018174511.GA6079@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041018183118.GA80703@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20041018184234.GC10529@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041018194927.GG89681@ip.net.ua> <41741F6E.90600@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 01:54:22PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > This has been discussed for years. It should not be a surpise. Frankly > I'm thrilled that David at least made it conditional rather than just > culling the support entirely as has been threatened so often in the > past. > _What_ has been discussed for years? It's been for years that GENERIC kernel doesn't support i386. It's been for years that in 6.0-RELEASE the I386_CPU should go away. It wasn't for years that default world won't run on i386. If this is going to happen (you speak for re@?), then let's declare it to the world first -- this is all I ask about. If i386 support should go away completely, I'm fine with this too, but let's declare it before doing it. =20 > i386 hasn't been supported in the default configuration for years.=20 >=20 This was true only about the kernel. > Whether or not someone got it running with 5.2.1 doesn't change this. >=20 How's that? i386 release notes say that running on i386 is still supported, just requires recompiling a kernel. This is no longer the case after this commit. > The knobs are there to (theoretically) turn it on. So as long as those > knobs are consistent and documented, nothing is lost. >=20 They are not, and my complaint was solely about it. I ended up sending a patch to David for libc/Makefile per his request. > Guys, just decide on the name of the knob and be done with it. Please! > This was settled years ago. The 80386 isn't making an unexpected > comeback here that warrants a lot of fighting. >=20 This is not a fighting at all. Rather, this is just a normal polishing of an incomplete commit. Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBdCNqqRfpzJluFF4RAq/gAKCb/nyVcxAPcKg6LCyAdVG4ny2ePgCdHy6j +IjNcfwfNtf+oyMNb+4PWkw= =UJ21 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041018201122.GB34236>