From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jul 18 1: 0:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mimer.webgiro.com (mimer.webgiro.com [212.209.29.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142B237B8D5 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:00:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abial@webgiro.com) Received: by mimer.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 9E2802DC0B; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:05:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2656E7817; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:55:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2163010E17; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:55:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:55:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrzej Bialecki To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Boris Popov , Neil Blakey-Milner , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Conditionally removing cosmetic messages for small kernels (PICOBSD). In-Reply-To: <20000717181754.A13979@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Boris Popov [000717 17:07] wrote: > > > > A more general question: should we allow more options to exclude > > optional and obsolete parts of the kernel ? For example, I've ripped out > > aout, aio and jail related code without any effect on functionality for my > > particular system. > > I'm sure our friends in the embedded systems world would say yes. :) For well-known set of applications you may want also to remove COMPAT_43. Andrzej Bialecki // WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message