From owner-cvs-all Sun Jan 14 13:23:34 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from webcom.it (unknown [212.239.10.243]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFC4837B698 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:23:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4235 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Jan 2001 21:16:52 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:16:52 +0100 From: Andrea Campi To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Mark Murray , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <20010114221651.A3627@webcom.it> References: <200101141858.f0EIwOI24920@gratis.grondar.za> <30911.979499109@critter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <30911.979499109@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:05:09PM +0100 X-Echelon: BND CIA NSA Mossad KGB MI6 IRA detonator nuclear assault strike Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >> 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