From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 20 19:18:30 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCE716A41C; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:18:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC5F43D49; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:18:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id j5KJISXM006010; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:18:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20050620.131344.131702703.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, rwatson@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:18:30 -0000 On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: > Daniel Eischen writes: > : On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > In message: > : > Daniel Eischen 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