From owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 11 12:45:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7E816A4CE; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:45:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F9A43D31; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:45:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2BKjN9Q095912; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:45:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3/Submit) id i2BKjN3W095911; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:45:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:45:23 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20040311124523.A95777@xorpc.icir.org> References: <53045.1079035854@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <53045.1079035854@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@phk.freebsd.dk on Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:10:54PM +0100 cc: small@freebsd.org cc: Julian Elischer cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "nanobsd" prototype X-BeenThere: freebsd-small@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Dedicated and Embedded Systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:45:26 -0000 On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:10:54PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Ju > lian Elischer writes: > > > > > >On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >> > >[...] > >> mkdir /usr/src/nanobsd > >[...] > >> > >> Feedback of all sorts most welcome! And more documentation > >> to arrive as it gets written. > > > >wouldn't it make sense to put nanoBSD in release alongside picoBSD? > >(that still leaves us microBSD and milliBSD :-) > > As I understand it picoBSD has never managed the 4.x->5.x transition what do you mean ? it builds happily last time i tried (sometime in january) except for the usual bloat issues that the boot floppies have too. Now i agree that having picobsd in src/picobsd or src/tools or even ports/sys/* would be a better place given that there are absolutely no things to patch in the base tree except for the following minor patch to /usr/src/Makefile.inc1 which i believe is similar to the one you used for nanobsd cheers luigi > lcvs diff -u Makefile.inc1 Index: Makefile.inc1 =================================================================== RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/Makefile.inc1,v retrieving revision 1.398 diff -u -r1.398 Makefile.inc1 --- Makefile.inc1 9 Dec 2003 00:42:44 -0000 1.398 +++ Makefile.inc1 6 Jan 2004 20:45:19 -0000 @@ -372,7 +372,10 @@ .if !defined(SUBDIR_OVERRIDE) WMAKE_TGTS+= _cross-tools .endif -WMAKE_TGTS+= _includes _libraries _depend everything +WMAKE_TGTS+= _includes _libraries +.if !defined(PICOBSD) +WMAKE_TGTS+= _depend everything +.endif buildworld: ${WMAKE_TGTS}