From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 20 19:26:31 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 2682B16A41C;
	Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:26:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E9843D1F;
	Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:26:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F81446BB1;
	Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:29:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
Message-ID: <20050620202808.N26664@fledge.watson.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:26:31 -0000


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