Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)

[David Brownlee <abs%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, T. Makinen wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:04 AM, David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost> 
> wrote:
> >        Actually, regarding kernel naming suggestions...  Why do
> >        we have a BOOTX at all? When does it make sense to use
> >        BOOTX instead of ATARITT or FALCON? I can understand BOOT
> >        as its for a minimal memory machine, but if you have
> >        more memory or an 060 you should be using ATARITT or FALCON
> >
> >        I'd actually suggest renaming BOOT to SMALL030 or similar
> >        to more accurately represent what it is...
> >
> >        If we get rid of BOOTX then the only shortname conflict is
> >        with netbsd-MILAN-PCIIDE.gz and netbsd-MILAN-ISAIDE.gz...
> >
> >        What do people think?
>
> BOOTX is smaller and does not use RELOC_KERNEL. I'm not sure
> how well FALCON or ATARITT kernel works with 4MB machine ?
>
> I can't come up with any other reasons why we should keep it.

        On a 4MB machine I suspect you're best off with BOOT (or
        SMALL030 if its renamed). BOOTX is 1976K vs 1719K (256K
        bigger), which is a fair chunk of 4MB...


--
                David/absolute       -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --