Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:59:31 -0400 From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2 Message-ID: <CACqU3MV3oiUT3yUbiYTC7buKmaRvcL_MAhgnpJsu0m6a%2BGQcGQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261941050.882@multics.mit.edu> References: <201109260053.SAA25795@lariat.net> <201109260927.02540.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261359100.882@multics.mit.edu> <201109262035.OAA17199@lariat.net> <CACqU3MUZ_ez-KMGVR33Aqz31i9cE%2BW7ANtvhqy3D%2BiPfroFpxA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1109261941050.882@multics.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> wrote: >>> >>> My personal preference would be to place portions of the directory tree >>> which contain critical configuration information and are not written in >>> normal use -- e.g. /etc and /boot -- >>> >> The problem with /boot on a dedicated partition is the the kernel, >> since at least 8.x, is installed by default with a vast majority of >> crap. That's all the .symbols, that 99% of FreeBSD users will never >> uses. > > My recollection is that this is because kensmith forgot to take 'makeopti= ons > DEBUG=3D-g' out of GENERIC when branching stable/8, and no one noticed un= til a > couple of releases in, at which point it seemed consistent with POLA to j= ust > keep it there. =A0Unfortunately I am not having much luck digging through= mail > archives trying to confirm that. > I don't remember whether the plan was to turn it off on stable/9 or not. > >> >> Beside that, the auto-partitionner refuses to work on <1G drive, which >> is really ridiculous... >> >> FreeBSD 9.0BETA2 bases + games fit in 310MB, crap taken out. > > Can you even buy a spinning disk less than 50GB these days? > 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. > If you have hardware of that nature, you are almost certainly going to wa= nt > to customize other aspects of the system (and if it's an under-provisione= d > system, are you really going to be doing this customization in-place?), a= t > which point removing the extra stuff is minimal extra work. =A0If a devel= oper > 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. - Arnaud
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACqU3MV3oiUT3yUbiYTC7buKmaRvcL_MAhgnpJsu0m6a%2BGQcGQ>