Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801

At Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:36:07 +0200,
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The trouble with options like this is that they escape our normal
> build tests.
> 
> A good example of this is the kernel option INET which in theory
> is optional, but which on average only is it 10% of the time.

The only way to get this to work, IMHO, is to take the full system,
and generate a dependency graph, if that's even possible.  Then you
know where to cut and where new APIs need to be defined to know where
to cut.  I'll try to generate this as part of the scripts on
code-speluking.org.

Later,
George