cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S

[John Baldwin]

On Thursday 21 October 2004 02:08 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:53:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > We've hashed this out in the ancient past before and decided that we
> > would require a custom kernel for 80386 for 5.x but not a custom
> > userland.
>
> From my memory that's not what we hashed out.  We spoke of not supporting
> (ie, running on) 80386 by default.  There was no explicit talk of just
> the kernel and not userland.  Do you have mail logs showing otherwise?
>
> I'm guessing this will have to go to RE@ and Core@ to reconfirm the
> policy.

I waded though many arch@ archives but couldn't find where I had brought this 
issue up.  I did find one instance where it was discussed prior to the SMPng 
commit back in April/May 2000 (old, yes) where cp@ wanted to drop 386 and 486 
support for 5, and the ideas there were to allow for separate kernels.  At 
this point, I guess I don't care/have enough time to burn on this.  I would 
think you of all people would care about sticking to previously agreed to 
decisions though.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org