Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:38:24 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <20010114123824.D1379@puck.firepipe.net> In-Reply-To: <20010114133018.A1918@student.uu.se>; from ertr1013@student.uu.se on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:30:19PM %2B0100 References: <28586.979469127@critter> <200101141115.f0EBFBQ89810@mobile.wemm.org> <20010114130017.A1612@student.uu.se> <20010114040933.A35126@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010114133018.A1918@student.uu.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:30:19PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote: > Point taken. I was mainly (knee-jerk) reacting to the statements that > a 386 was unsuitable for running anything above 2.2.x which is not true. > (Note to self: Think things through a bit more before replying next time.) That makes sense, if there is some realistic proportion to your assertions that 386 can run up to 4.x just fine. :-) > Alright, there might be good reasons to drop 386 support from -current. I > don't like it, but I can live with it. Of course you can live with it. 3.x support lasted well until about 4.1 or 4.2-RELEASE (within the Project, anyway, and this isn't counting ports, which still has a few 3.x-isms and is likely to stay that way for some time longer). Hence, you can assume 4.x will still be supported as far as bugfixes, security fixes, etc. for another 2 years or so perhaps. Heck, we're still MFC'ing security fixes into 2.2.x, even though the last time a release on that branch was done about two and a half years ago. *SO* I think you can depend on 4.x being a good branch for 386's (providing of course that they can still run them :-). It will be a loooong time before support for that branch is dropped (by the Project, BSDI, and other commercial consultants). > Just remember to change all the places that refer to 'i386' as the generic > name for the architecture if the 386 itself is dropped. :-) I think 'ia32' is a good name. :-) David? :-) --=20 wca --11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6YeQOF47idPgWcsURAgx5AJ9sAIHaVsgi2tTXEsE4QkuL3dWcpQCfSHEK 0WrguhE275fbuSjym1XjYj8= =akg2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs-- 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?20010114123824.D1379>