Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)

["T. Makinen" <tjamaloo%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 AM, David Brownlee <abs%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
> 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...

True. There's no much reason to keep BOOTX floating around.

-Tuomo