Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:02:22 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Moving Things [was Re: List of things to move from main tree] Message-ID: <200102180902.f1I92MW01403@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:45:32 PST." <9070.982485932@winston.osd.bsdi.com> References: <9070.982485932@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan, I'd like to point out that making FreeBSD more modular doesn't necessarily mean that we have to change the policy we have hard coded into the Makefiles. We can and do subset things more easily than that. NetBSD builds everything during make build, but has a better layering of system components than FreeBSD, for example. I'm not saying thta it is good or bad. There are pros and cons to both ways. I have a kludge script that just install the minimal (for a suitible definition of minimal) set of files on a target system. I doubt they rise to the level that they could be used for packageNG, but stranger things have happened :-) You do make an excellent point that we do have this policy hard coded into the make files. We have limited support for subsetting in the Makefiles. We can support one set of subsetting for the source upgrades and one class for the binary folks. This may or may not be desirable from a support point of view, but it is what we already do now. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102180902.f1I92MW01403>