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