Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <66959.1119209763@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20050619155228.Y6413@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes: > > >I general, I was quite pleased with the experience. NanoBSD is fairly > >straight forward to configre and adapt. > > I'm still not satisfied with the nanobsd config/customize process, > ideally I would want to have only a single file with a sensible > format control the nanobsd build process. > > The major obstacle is the "cutting things down to size" process > using NO_FOO options. > > In order to get down a 31MB partition size things have to be cut > very extensively and not even the NO_FOO options is enough at that > level but sniper rm(1) commands are necessary. > > I think the NO_FOO options is the best compromize, but we need them > to be more aligned to user concepts, "I don't need a compiler and > all that", rather than "Don't build the C++ compiler and hobble > the build because of this". 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). -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000>