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

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote:

>> 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).

I'd very much like to see this, but would like to see the Mk 
infrastructure provide a sensible way to do it.  Offhand, I don't know 
what that sensible way should be.

Regardless, NanoBSD is a good example of a situation where you want to 
build something -- i.e., the full compiler suite, but not install it, and 
devd is a particularly motivating case now that dhclient won't run 
properly without it.

Robert N M Watson