Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:38:55 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX Message-ID: <84615b2d-b9cd-708f-78f8-c52fadb71d18@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2DUuoT9q6HSccZL_kGJVtT%2BWg=1i0inhpwCvY0FBEtoFg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2DJcDFbSoD8awU03jPBY1YVytf%2Bxk4qpv3pW_GLkOsfWA@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqnHRGZkFCwBP5YcEMK%2BOVnpKAVkgXxe0G3En7YKUraQQ@mail.gmail.com> <13a7b078-9e53-6bc2-a94e-b366ac1413dd@grosbein.net> <CAPyFy2DUuoT9q6HSccZL_kGJVtT%2BWg=1i0inhpwCvY0FBEtoFg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
26.11.2021 5:16, Ed Maste wrote > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 16:52, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote: >> >> 26.11.2021 4:45, Warner Losh wrote: >>> >>> We've grown enough C++ support this is likely sane. >> >> How embedded-friendly is this? I mean a difference in required space for self-contained small file system. >> Comparing with 8.x/9.x, minimal FreeBSD image become pretty big. > > I'm not really concerned about this with respect specifically to WITHOUT_CXX. > > Of course it's important to support small images, but we need to do so > via pkgbase, nanobsd, etc., rather than poorly-maintained build knobs. > (Knobs like WITHOUT_INCLUDES are built into our make infrastructure, > and are fine.) I use nanobsd to build my images and knobs are main tool for nanobsd (though not only) to exclude unneeded parts of system from resulting image. That's why I have asked.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?84615b2d-b9cd-708f-78f8-c52fadb71d18>