From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 19 20:22:25 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 868A916A41C; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:22:25 +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 48E2043D1F; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:22:25 +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 j5JKMNf9000044; Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <66959.1119209763@critter.freebsd.dk> 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: Robert Watson , 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: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:22:25 -0000 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20050619155228.Y6413@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes: > > >I general, I was quite pleased with the experience. NanoBSD is fairly > >straight forward to configre and adapt. > > I'm still not satisfied with the nanobsd config/customize process, > ideally I would want to have only a single file with a sensible > format control the nanobsd build process. > > The major obstacle is the "cutting things down to size" process > using NO_FOO options. > > In order to get down a 31MB partition size things have to be cut > very extensively and not even the NO_FOO options is enough at that > level but sniper rm(1) commands are necessary. > > I think the NO_FOO options is the best compromize, but we need them > to be more aligned to user concepts, "I don't need a compiler and > all that", rather than "Don't build the C++ compiler and hobble > the build because of this". 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). -- DE