From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 28 7:34:44 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D67737B401 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail16.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.216]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC54943F93 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:34:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 27723 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 15:34:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 28 Feb 2003 15:34:44 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1SFWuhT030067; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:32:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:34:53 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Marcel Moolenaar Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 28-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 3:55 PM -0800 2/27/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >> > >... JMB wrote: >> > > I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just >> > > accidentally broken for almost a month and a half without >> > > anyone noticing. >> > >>> Well, doesn't that suggest that it would be GOOD if the release >>> process itself had to build a GENERIC_I386 kernel? >> >>It's never good to add to your release cycle something you don't >>build/validate during development. Releases are painful enough >>that you don't want to turn them into testbeds. If it's not >>worth testing during development, it's not worth releasing... > > Okay, that also makes good sense. But if that is true, then maybe > we should officially tell our users that they *must* stay with the > 4.x-series if they are running 386 hardware. I do think that the > project has plenty of work with 5.x-series, particularly as we > try to add sparc64, ppc, and maybe more hardware platforms. > > We do have a lot to test already, and there is no sense pretending > to support i386 when we don't have the resources or the inclination > to really test it. I think we're hitting that grey area where we > do not really support i386, but for pride's sake we don't quite > want to admit that 5.x will not support it. I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x. However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of theoretical objections. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message