From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 29 21:06:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CCB1065676; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:06:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652158FC28; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5TL2QwV014533; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:02:26 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:02:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20100629.150240.339978944265510529.imp@bsdimp.com> To: gcooper@FreeBSD.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20100629.111921.1075071109811565815.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, ru@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Build tools X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:06:24 -0000 In message: Garrett Cooper writes: : On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:19 AM, M. Warner Losh wro= te: : > In message: : > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Garrett Cooper writes:= : > : On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: : > : > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: : > : >> Hi Warner, : > : >> : > : >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 06:17:19PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote= : : > : >>> In message: <20100626.172307.4959786928950356.imp@bsdimp.com>= : > : >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "M. Warner Losh" wri= tes: : > : >>> : Hey Ruslan, : > : >>> : : > : >>> : Maybe you can help me understand why the following are in t= he : > : >>> : buildtools list: : > : >>> : _share=3D share/syscons/scrnmaps : > : >>> : : > : >>> : =A0 =A0 bin/csh \ : > : >>> : =A0 =A0 lib/ncurses/ncurses \ : > : >>> : =A0 =A0 lib/ncurses/ncursesw \ : > : >>> : =A0 =A0 ${_share} \ : > : >>> : =A0 =A0 lib/libmagic \ : > : >>> : =A0 =A0 usr.sbin/sysinstall : > : >>> : : > : >>> : There's clearly some side effects that I'm missing here... : > : >>> : > : >>> I'm missing that build-tools: target is built, and that those= tools : > : >>> are then used to build these items. =A0It isn't that these it= ems are : > : >>> built themselves. : > : >> : > : >> Is there anything else I'm supposed to answer? =A0:-) : > : > : > : > I think I see why peter@ added the sysinstall bit. If you look = at the : > : > Makefile itself there's a built-tools target (which is fairly : > : > inconsequential as the rtermcap program is relatively small), a= nd a : > : > dependency to check for an existing prebuilt fat termcap file a= nd/or : > : > build a copy from scratch if the prebuilt one doesn't exist. I = have no : > : > idea why it's in sysinstall's Makefile -- but it's there today = (which : > : > means that one should probably tread around it with a big stick= for : > : > the time being, and eventually be moved out if it's of value). : > : : > : =A0 =A0 Finally got things netbooted, and I verified that nothing= blew up : > : with sysinstall missing from the box. : > : > I've audited at least the build-tools target portion, and nothing w= ill : > break if we don't build it during the build-tools phase, so long as= we : > don't try to build sysinstall later. =A0Of course, a stripped termc= ap : > file likely should replace the compiled-in entries. =A0Many people = have : > had good luck getting the stripped version to be extra-tiny. =A0Als= o, : > many of the entries that are compiled in are no longer relevant, an= d : > could be removed (another reason to have them be in a file sysinsta= ll : > reads). =A0The days of 1.2MB floppies that motivated this in the fi= rst : > place are long gone... : = : Because the defacto floppy size was increased from 1.2MB to : 1.44MB, or because floppies should die (pc98 folks would probably : disagree though as that's why sysinstall still has floppy support :/)= ? No. Because the size sysinstall has to fit in is now constrained by the CDROM's size, not by the floppy's size. Warner