Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:57:23 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S Message-ID: <200410211557.23246.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20041021180809.GA36479@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <4175B591.4090407@elischer.org> <200410201553.40823.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20041021180809.GA36479@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 21 October 2004 02:08 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:53:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > We've hashed this out in the ancient past before and decided that we > > would require a custom kernel for 80386 for 5.x but not a custom > > userland. > > From my memory that's not what we hashed out. We spoke of not supporting > (ie, running on) 80386 by default. There was no explicit talk of just > the kernel and not userland. Do you have mail logs showing otherwise? > > I'm guessing this will have to go to RE@ and Core@ to reconfirm the > policy. I waded though many arch@ archives but couldn't find where I had brought this issue up. I did find one instance where it was discussed prior to the SMPng commit back in April/May 2000 (old, yes) where cp@ wanted to drop 386 and 486 support for 5, and the ideas there were to allow for separate kernels. At this point, I guess I don't care/have enough time to burn on this. I would think you of all people would care about sticking to previously agreed to decisions though. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410211557.23246.jhb>