Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:29:19 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, current@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <20050620202808.N26664@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> 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? I'm trying to remember the reason NO_CXX actually exists -- I believe it's because our sparc64 port didn't have working C++ for some period of time, so we didn't build C++ (and its dependencies). It could well be that NO_CXX is OBE, and we can eliminate it entirely? I.e., C++ support libraries and applications are now a basic requirement as DHCP is broken without them? Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050620202808.N26664>