From owner-freebsd-embedded@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 16 22:47:22 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F860106566B for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:47:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from security@jim-liesl.org) Received: from smtp1.mc.surewest.net (qsmtp.mc.surewest.net [66.60.130.145]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 383108FC15 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:47:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from security@jim-liesl.org) Received: (qmail 28181 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2009 15:31:00 -0700 Received: by simscan 1.1.0 ppid: 28178, pid: 28179, t: 0.0765s scanners: regex: 1.1.0 attach: 1.1.0 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.jim-liesl.org) (66.60.173.44) by smtp1 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2009 15:31:00 -0700 Received: from smtp.jim-liesl.org (localhost.static.surewest.net [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.jim-liesl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933545DDC for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (daemon.static.surewest.net [192.168.1.15]) by smtp.jim-liesl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EF15D44 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49E7AF2B.2020908@jim-liesl.org> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:20:27 -0700 From: security User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: tinybsd- ports question X-BeenThere: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Dedicated and Embedded Systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:47:22 -0000 I'm using fbsd 7.1-p4. (running under qemu/kqemu/windows host) question: When I build a tinybsd image (wrap), it rebuilds all the ports every time I run it. All the ports already have been built on the build system. Am I missing something here? I thought it checked to see if the ports were already installed, and if so, it copied the binaries (and extras) rather than building them fresh every time. I'm really torn between nano and tiny. I like nano's ability to skip the world and kernel builds and the "extra" boot partition. Tiny has a much more elegant ports handler and is smart about getting the world binaries from the host. Tiny needs less space, but with flash getting so cheap, it's less of an important factor for me. I do realize other embedded uses might find that more important. thanks jim