Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:16:52 +0100 From: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <20010114221651.A3627@webcom.it> In-Reply-To: <30911.979499109@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:05:09PM %2B0100 References: <200101141858.f0EIwOI24920@gratis.grondar.za> <30911.979499109@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> I think it's the time to throw i386 over the railing and lower the
> >> waterline a fair bit on -current.
> >
> >Does it make any sense at all to make 80386 a separate platform
> >a'la pc98/alpha/ia64? Do enough people care about it?
>
> No it doesn't. I think you'll find that running 5.x in less than
> 32MB is going to be painfull or impossible in the first place.
Sorry Poul, I think the question here is: "if we decide to remove i386 support
BUT a few people still want to use it and can maintain it as a separate
platform port, is it an option to do so, from a technical point of view?"
Personally, I don't care about i386 support in -current, but if it's possible
to keep it in parallel, then why not?
My Euro 0.02
Bye,
Andrea
--
I believe the technical term is "Oops!"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010114221651.A3627>