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