Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:13:44 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: deischen@FreeBSD.org Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <20050620.131344.131702703.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201507010.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20050620.125452.102654445.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201507010.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201507010.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
: > Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes:
: > : How about NO_FOO[_INSTALL], where NO_FOO = no build and no install,
: > : and NO_FOO_INSTALL just prevents the install. In theory, you could
: > : build the complete system, then use NO_FOO_INSTALL instead of rm(1).
: >
: > What's wrong with making sure that NO_FOO will work in the install
: > case to not install foo when it is set, even if it was unset in the
: > build process?
:
: If it works or can be made to work, then nothing.
Actually, looking at the code, it would cause devd to be built, but
not installed without changes. Since NO_GXX is defined in the above
scenario. I've started to think about how this might be fixed. It
really is a 'don't build this because of toolchain depends' as a
'don't build his because I don't want this feature' intertwinglement.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050620.131344.131702703.imp>