From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 21 20:58:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A3A16A4E0 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:58:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net (mail1.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A7B43D4C for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:58:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 8382 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2004 20:58:47 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 21 Oct 2004 20:58:47 -0000 Received: from [10.50.41.228] (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9LKwQnL068720; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:58:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:57:23 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <4175B591.4090407@elischer.org> <200410201553.40823.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20041021180809.GA36479@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20041021180809.GA36479@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410211557.23246.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Daniel Eischen cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Julian Elischer cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:58:48 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org