On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > >> > The storage world is not limited to spinning hardware. Take a 512MB > CF, put it in a soekris box, and you got an embedded system capable of > doing a whole bunch of stuff. > > Now, FreeBSD may no longer want to target such "niche" usage. Sure we do! See nanobsd.sh and http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/nanobsd/index.html But the point is, if you are running an embedded system, it is almost certainly in your best interest to tune it a bit, to reduce disk/power/memory usage -- the default install should not feel too constrained by the limits of embedded systems. > >> If you have hardware of that nature, you are almost certainly going to want >> to customize other aspects of the system (and if it's an under-provisioned >> system, are you really going to be doing this customization in-place?), at >> which point removing the extra stuff is minimal extra work. If a developer >> has to ask a user to do something (e.g. compile) in order to debug >> something, there is a huge hit in the response rate; having the symbols >> available in the general case can be helpful. >> > Then why don't you provide symbols for the whole system, including > binaries and libraries ? At least be consistent in your argument... > > And, yes, I have patches for that. Not really my argument; chance and POLA, really. But that's not my call to make. (Are the patches public/in a PR?) -BenReceived on Mon Sep 26 2011 - 23:13:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:18 UTC