Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:51:43 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX Message-ID: <202111260951.1AQ9phkb044890@critter.freebsd.dk> 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
-------- Ed Maste writes: > 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.) Just a bit of nit-picking and some commentary: At least as far as NanoBSD goes, that is a tautological argument, because slim NanoBSD images are created using WITHOUT_* options[1]. WITHOUT_CXX used to be one of the good ones, it freed up a lot of space, at a cost of, as I remember it, groff. We should always have a few such supported "shaves a lot" options, if for no other reason than because the B-O-S does positively explodes if it has to do all the combinatorics. These days, WITHOUT_TOOLCHAIN is my goto for really slim images, it shaves twice as much as WITHOUT_CXX. Poul-Henning [1] This is why I wrote the build-option-survey in the first place :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202111260951.1AQ9phkb044890>