Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:30:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <20050619212919.Y6413@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000@sea.ntplx.net> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> 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). I'd very much like to see this, but would like to see the Mk infrastructure provide a sensible way to do it. Offhand, I don't know what that sensible way should be. Regardless, NanoBSD is a good example of a situation where you want to build something -- i.e., the full compiler suite, but not install it, and devd is a particularly motivating case now that dhclient won't run properly without it. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050619212919.Y6413>