On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:29:53AM +0100, Zé Loff wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Patrick Harper wrote: > > If the situation isn't going to change anytime soon then I have some > > diffs for INSTALL.i386 and INSTALL.amd64. The latter has not specified > > disk requirements, I guess since anyone who owns an amd64 system will > > very likely be using a disk big enough for X, so I figured that the > > same would apply to any user of an i386 system that meets the proposed > > minimum RAM. These are based on the 2021-09-21 snapshot versions. > > > > --- INSTALL.i386.txt Wed Sep 22 16:52:38 2021 > > +++ INSTALL.i386_new Wed Sep 22 16:51:17 2021 > > @@ -201,10 +201,7 @@ OpenBSD/i386 7.0 supports most SMP (Symmetrical > > MultiP > > systems. To support SMP operation, a separate SMP kernel (bsd.mp) > > is included with the installation file sets. > > > > -The minimal configuration to install the system is 32MB of RAM and > > -at least 250MB of disk space to accommodate the `base' set. > > -To install the entire system, at least 600MB of disk are required, > > -and to run X or compile the system, more RAM is recommended. > > +The minimal configuration to install the system is 512MB of RAM. > > > > Please refer to the website for a full list of supported hardware: > > https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html > > > > > > --- INSTALL.amd64.txt Wed Sep 22 16:52:48 2021 > > +++ INSTALL.amd64_new Wed Sep 22 16:51:12 2021 > > @@ -202,6 +202,8 @@ is included with the installation file sets. > > OpenBSD/amd64 7.0 supports both UEFI/GPT booting and BIOS/MBR > > booting. > > > > +The minimal configuration to install the system is 512MB of RAM. > > + > > Please refer to the website for a full list of supported hardware. > > > > https://www.openbsd.org/amd64.html > > > > > > Patrick Harper > > > > IMHO, stating minimum disk space requirements might be useful for > determining partition sizes e.g. when setting up multibooting, creating > disk images for virtual machines, etc. I agree that nowadays 600Mb > might be easy to come by for a i386 machine (I did have to upgrade the > 512Mb CF cards on my soekris boxes, but I know that's a corner case), > but still. I don't think there is a problem needing to be fixed, here. >
Just a minor clarification about my statement above: I meant that _presenting_ disk size requirements isn't a problem in itself (other than some maintenance overhead, of course). Stating outdated values obviously is. Sorry for the noise Z --
