"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com> writes:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > ---> It's time to get rid of zImage once and for all. <---
> > >
> > > Why is that? Well, when Linux was originally created, DOS memory was
> > > considered a critical resource and very few computer manufacturers would
> > > have ever considered burning this resource for anything that wasn't
> >
> > No thats 2.5
> >
> > > So, given that, does anyone see any reason at all to support zImage
> > > kernels anymore?
> >
> > For the odd boxes that apparently wont boot bzImage kernels. And its a change
> > we can do at 2.5.0 with less pain anyway
> >
>
> I don't know of any boxes that still won't boot bzImage... if there are
> any, I'd like to know about them so we can get it fixed.
>
> I would like to suggest making zImage officially deprecated (preferrably
> including some echo statement in the Makefile), but not removed, in 2.4,
> and then nuked completely in 2.5.
i am all for depreciated status of zImage. too many docs suggest
trying zImage first and then going to bzImage. we should try to
reverse the trend.
this has two features
1) zImage is still available and hence no one will really suffer
2) those for whom bzImage doesn't work will squawk and let us know
about it
-- J o h a n K u l l s t a m [kullstam@ne.mediaone.net] Don't Fear the Penguin!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:32 EST