Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:47:16 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Migration to dynamic libs for llvm and clang Message-ID: <098F3C6B-6DB4-472F-9CA0-D12BE5E37A19@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <6D28CE1D-B94D-4E5E-B2DC-96C47E6C63BF@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAPyFy2DeLiFAW_yS14r1n89r92MFG1sbX88rNgaJshwH9-%2BkQg@mail.gmail.com> <41F09A1C-01D6-42C9-B495-244DFC2B0364@FreeBSD.org> <D359161D-B14C-4F19-8F0D-57FE530D0AF4@FreeBSD.org> <74C51AC7-B7ED-4EBC-8506-1554C7CA31FF@FreeBSD.org> <CAPyFy2BSU%2B8-TWh53z_FT-z2NCsCDU6=%2Bi_-OH6MJTxo2dqhpw@mail.gmail.com> <15A17E31-22CA-4680-869B-3B7AC1E49741@bsdimp.com> <6D28CE1D-B94D-4E5E-B2DC-96C47E6C63BF@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] > On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 16 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> Fair enough, I'd definitely like to see fewer build-time knobs over >>> time, not more. >> >> Until we stop using build-time knobs to control what’s in the final image >> as a poor man’s packaging scheme, I expect the number of knobs to >> continue to grow. > > How does a packaging scheme solve the problem of not compiling in > dependencies, or linking everything static? You cannot pre-build all > possible combinations of selectable options. > > As for knobs that just say "build foo" or "don't build bar", those would > indeed be fine for a packaging system, as long as packages aren't too > dependent on each other. Right now we mix build options for building things or not (e.g. WITH_SENDMAIL) with build options for things like this (WITH_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN). The number of the former is increasing all the time (with a big increase when Ngie’s work hits the tree). So in many senses, it is an orthogonal issue. My comment was more to Ed’s notion that these numbers will be dropping any time soon. packing the base is actually a hard problem because the phrase “as long as packages aren’t dependent on each other” turns out to not be the case as much as we might like. The base is fairly interdependent of all that since we have it as one big ball of stuff right now. Most of the issues revolve around dependence on the libraries and such. With patience and diligence, I think we can package the base, but it isn’t going to be a trivial slam dunk if it is going to be useful. Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUkIxFAAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEAxzQP/2o98z/7Y9Tlc3ZrxHBxHU+X ij1svutS4QQV210j3JYAvKEgWBQambnAg1rO2uFhg48zbZd+Zf8SFe/l0+Tf7oGm aCE2/bONVJrGesR10DkHWXfx50Z9dqIfzapZQJ+z6//NHMO7bSYhFd1XFUQB9xIG WQfpJAX3BPu74reIsfHmT4R32BRlVdSY+4LX8AjLqtDSCTDib96pnDj6EwjFl79e NoA39WXG2C/eg6OZQyDX0q29nVqLpZNEh2o+WL+H1cOU48KE0ezotAtr4nt/Kwrl 2U9s6WP+QZkXv9Bd6XKz4h4DEdlz3pVmlg2F4qbz0pAUjPbGaltRQl2tFBFwcqcQ 9Jxapy27tDV0tIX0J29ZrTLT6Hn41FOeXDH9OeRa0ZIiElXMXUaRssm6yLr4B8II KpCUJ1cXxefNfasfyyZKxudG4efIvDpsyhkqwY1sWHnY9xi/YcYGZZ2HJj0/aJxA y25preqXFwUQr0/yYEg98WIGMsWEQPB8QY8XA7tNGNJWWzsN8gWxRdaYSd0zpMa7 vXPNsyNmPx9DntHFhT8/iYRvFr9jmg1y1aGffxClkx7yQfODPuweWRKlkWK/If/u g+tlBlKcl06yXf1SSeXtVzkVQ+SAtjYpQGk6nTryT6WGQOj3KNSfZo+lxNQ5Wqow MhS8C8Pz0cJFhL6FDUM7 =wTKG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?098F3C6B-6DB4-472F-9CA0-D12BE5E37A19>