5.1 on a 386

[Lowell Gilbert]

> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I thought that they finally gave up on 386 support and
> > now the base minimum is 486.  It could very well be that you can't compile
> > the system for a 386 without significant modification.

No, it's just that a 386 isn't supported in the base install.  Given
how far the original poster had gotten, he appears to have a better
handle on the details of this issue.

Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> writes:

> If this is the case, then the hardware notes need updated, I quote:
> "All Intel processors beginning with the 80386 are supported, including the
> 80386, ..."
> ... and ...
> "While technically supported, the use of the 80386SX is specifically not
> recommended."
> That last sentence is slightly vague.  I assume that they recommend against
> the 386 simply because it's not powerful enough to be worthwhile, but it
> doesn't say specifically why.

No, the 386SX is a problem because it has no floating point registers
(or any other floating point support, for that matter).  The 386DX
(with the floating point support onboard) is supported just fine, as I
understand it.

The original poster probably needs to go to the -CURRENT mailing list,
where the details of the changed build procedures are understood a
little better than, well, than in my own head...