On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Luke Mewburn wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 11:33:47AM -0500, John Hawkinson wrote:
>   |
>   | > 	Should this be optional based on -DSMALL or similar?
>   | > 	(For TINY install media)
>   |
>   | I am uncertain what the full set of criteria for TINY is.
>   | It appeared to me that it did not overfill install media, but
>   | I did not test for all architectures.
>   |
>   | Pragmatically, because it is difficult to add a file to
>   | "all but some" architectures, I did it this wy.
>   |
>   | If it proves a problem, we could revisit it...is that the wrong
>   | attitude for TINY?
>
> If all the distrib media build (and even better, if you tested them;
> I recall that you've asked for more testing of these things ;-), then
> it's fine to leave your change.

	I think the criteria for TINY should be 'has a hope of working
	on 4MB machines', and as such any increase in size should be
	avoided whenever possible...
-- 
		David/absolute          -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --