On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:20:21AM +1100, Gregory Bond wrote: > > Yes, but then who do you target the ISO at? I'm trying to judge how widely > > used the older machines are and if we should still use boot.flp on the ISO's > > to > > accomodate them. > > It depends on the nature and ubiquity of the "newer devices" that > get dropped off kern.flp. If we get to the stage where even a small > fraction of new systems aren't supported by kern.flp installs (because > they come with RAID cards etc that are not on kern.flp) then it will > be time to change. It's much easier for middling-old systems to boot > using kern.flp than it is for someone (to pick a hypothetical example) > with only a RAID controller not supported by kern.flp to hand-craft > a floppy boot image, or do a double install (once to supported IDE > drive, once to unsupported-by-kern.flp RAID device). Unless we want > to get into the game of having a mix-n-match selection of kern.flp > images! (This might be doable if we have 2 kern.flp images - one for > "older systems" from 386-P2, one for "newer systems" from P3/Duron on, > to pick a somewhat arbitary convention that should at least be fairly > easy to explain to newbies.)
IMO, we crossed this line a while back when the first 10/100 Ethernet driver was removed from kern.flp. That's not as bad as a RAID controler, but it's pretty lame that we don't support any random ethernet NIC out of the box. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
msg40066/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
