On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Analysis and Solutions wrote:

> I'm checking out the 1.5.1_BETA2 snapshot tree.  Noticed there are some new
> files in there:
>
> binary/sets/kern-laptop.tgz
> binary/sets/kern-tiny.tgz
> binary/sets/xmisc.tgz
>
> installation/floppy/boot-big.fs
> installation/floppy/boot-big.fs.gz
> installation/floppy/rescue-small.fs
> installation/floppy/rescue-tiny.fs

They're not new. They were all in 1.5, too.

> More importantly, these files aren't described in the INSTALL.html file.

They're not supported by the installer, either (except for xmisc.tgz,
I think). Until the installer supports alternate kernels, there's not
much to say. Ideally, the install-laptop floppy would install
kern-laptop as /netbsd, but I don't know that it does.

> Bringing this to netbsd-bugs' attention so the INSTALL files can be updated
> before the release goes public.

I'm not certain Release Engineering even reads netbsd-bugs. There are
other ways to view the bugs database, of course, so if you really want
to get their attention, you should file a PR. [Hint: never mail bug
reports to netbsd-bugs. PR's are gated to netbsd-bugs automatically.]

> In addition, the install file should tell users what to do if they want to
> install utilize the kern-laptop or kern-tiny instead of the kern set.

Very true, but it's not likely to happen for 1.5.1. The way this works
(and I'm just a bit player in this drama, not the director, so you may
take all this with a grain of salt): Goals for the release are
discussed and agreed on way in advance. Once those goals are met, the
release is frozen against all pull-ups but "show-stoppers". Finally,
because no one ever looks at the release building stuff until it's
time to build the release, fixes to make the release actually build
are generally allowed all the way through the final builds.

Any other way, and the release would never be released -- there's new
bugs being fixed everyday. If you have language to contribute to
INSTALL.*, I suggest you put it in a PR, so that maybe it'll make it
into 1.6 or 1.5.2.

Another thought: rumour has it that the webmasters are quick to adopt
suggested changes to the FAQs. The i386 FAQ, especially, looks to be
well-maintained.


Frederick