Re: pushing netbsd-5 (Was: bootloader)

David Brownlee <[email protected]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:49:31 +0000 (GMT)

Newsgroups	gmane.os.netbsd.ports.atari
Message-ID	<alpine.NEB.2.00.0901222345030.8677@localhost>

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

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:04 AM, David Brownlee <[email protected]> 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 --