From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 16 14:59:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA25192 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:59:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from myrddin.demon.co.uk (exim@myrddin.demon.co.uk [158.152.54.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25178 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:59:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dom@myrddin.demon.co.uk) Received: from dom by myrddin.demon.co.uk with local (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0ywvxg-0000x2-00; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:53:12 +0100 To: ben@rosengart.com Cc: "Scot W. Hetzel" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Make release fails because kernel is too large References: From: Dom Mitchell In-Reply-To: Snob Art Genre's message of "Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:05:11 -0400 (EDT)" X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:53:11 +0100 Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Snob Art Genre writes: > On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Scot W. Hetzel wrote: > > > What about using 1.68 or 1.72 MB floppies? > > I think that this would drastically reduce the amount of > FreeBSD-friendly hardware out there. Yes, but don't Microsoft do similiar sorts of things with the Win95 boot floppies? I know that doesn't grant a right to do so by God, but it's a fairly clear idea of how much hardware *does* support it. -- ``If make doesn't do what you expect it to, it's a good chance the makefile is wrong.'' -- Adam de Boor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message