From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 29 23:33:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFFD16A4C2 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 234AB43FBF for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:33:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 45412 invoked by uid 1000); 30 Aug 2003 06:33:13 -0000 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:33:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson To: Peter Jeremy In-Reply-To: <20030830021617.GD43314@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Message-ID: <20030829233138.X45410@root.org> References: <200308291035.h7TAZ1Wm008611@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030829183759.GA68755@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030829121043.K43708@root.org> <20030830021617.GD43314@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: David O'Brien cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Robert Watson cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin Makefile src/lib Makefile src/sbin Makefile src/usr.bin Makefile src/usr.sbin Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 06:33:15 -0000 On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:14:17PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > >On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, David O'Brien wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:08:35AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > >> > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> > > >> > > NO_TOOLCHAIN skips Compilers and Binutils > >> > > NO_USB skips USB stuff > >> > > NO_VINUM skips Vinum stuff > >> > > NO_ACPI skips ACPI stuff > >> > > >> > Great! I was hoping this would be the outcome of the Minimalist FreeBSD > >> > discussion. > >> > >> Was there a discussion somewhere that most of us missed? > > > >Hmm, missed it also. In general I'm in favor of this but would prefer to > >see these also defined under a single knob (MINIMAL?). > > I'd like to disagree here. What you see as essential in a minimal > system might be irrelevant to me and vice versa. 2.x PicoBSD was > probably the first real attempt at 'minimal' and it came in four > versions (including 'custom') to meet different requirements. If you > take something like PicoBSD as a minimal system, does the 'minimal' > know give you the union or intersection of the various PicoBSD > variants? In the former case, you have something that's slightly more > than minimal and in the latter case, you need to add a few more bits > to reach a usable system. Exactly. You've followed my point to its logical conclusion which is that before we go too far down this road, come up with a design. -Nate