On 28-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 3:55 PM -0800 2/27/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>  > >... JMB wrote:
>>  > > I doubt the usefulness of this.  i386 kernels were just
>>  > > accidentally broken for almost a month and a half without
>>  > > anyone noticing.
>>  >
>>>  Well, doesn't that suggest that it would be GOOD if the release
>>>  process itself had to build a GENERIC_I386 kernel?
>>It's never good to add to your release cycle something you don't
>>build/validate during development. Releases are painful enough
>>that you don't want to turn them into testbeds. If it's not
>>worth testing during development, it's not worth releasing...
> Okay, that also makes good sense.  But if that is true, then maybe
> we should officially tell our users that they *must* stay with the
> 4.x-series if they are running 386 hardware.  I do think that the
> project has plenty of work with 5.x-series, particularly as we
> try to add sparc64, ppc, and maybe more hardware platforms.
> We do have a lot to test already, and there is no sense pretending
> to support i386 when we don't have the resources or the inclination
> to really test it.  I think we're hitting that grey area where we
> do not really support i386, but for pride's sake we don't quite
> want to admit that 5.x will not support it.

I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
theoretical objections.


John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to