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

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:36:07 +0200
In message <p0621021dbedbfa4dd5ff_at_[128.113.24.47]>, Garance A Drosehn writes:
>At 10:54 AM +0900 6/20/05, gnn_at_freebsd.org wrote:
>>At Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:36:03 +0200,
>>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>  >
>>>  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.
>>
>>If I may jump in here.  One way to do the build up vs. cut down thing
>>is to break up more of the system into understandable chunks, but that
>>takes work.  Then it's easier to build up a system from components.
>>
>>I'll take a look at nanonbsd hopefully this week anyways, as I need
>>to get it running in a VM as well as on a Soekris at home.  I make no
>>promises.  The last system I worked with that did a componentization
>>got it very very wrong.
>
>Another thing I was thinking about was that we could have more
>components which trim themselves down based on #defines for
>something like MINIMALIST_USER or MINIMALIST_USERBIN .

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.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Mon Jun 20 2005 - 04:36:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:37 UTC