In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000_at_sea.ntplx.net> Daniel Eischen <deischen_at_freebsd.org> writes: : On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: : : > In message <20050619155228.Y6413_at_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). What's wrong with making sure that NO_FOO will work in the install case to not install foo when it is set, even if it was unset in the build process? WarnerReceived on Mon Jun 20 2005 - 16:54:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:37 UTC