Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:18:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, rwatson@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20050620.131344.131702703.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201507010.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net> > Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes: > : On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000@sea.ntplx.net> > : > Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes: > : > : 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? > : > : If it works or can be made to work, then nothing. > > Actually, looking at the code, it would cause devd to be built, but > not installed without changes. Since NO_GXX is defined in the above > scenario. I've started to think about how this might be fixed. It > really is a 'don't build this because of toolchain depends' as a > 'don't build his because I don't want this feature' intertwinglement. Also, what about dynamic executables that need libstdc++, but you still don't want the build tools? -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000>