Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:30:31 -0800
From:      Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To:        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled?
Message-ID:  <CAJ-VmomAX7cBuOfUgEW0UXcQ87Zie1_3Oad2rir5v97iEhKuCw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <86ty4a8mc3.fsf@ds4.des.no>
References:  <CAJ-Vmo=qNu9KpF6kSofychNcjwexFKvAT8bnwd3gVr-VPymN5w@mail.gmail.com> <86ty4a8mc3.fsf@ds4.des.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/1/5 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no>:
> Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> writes:
>> Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required.
>> It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled.
>>
>> Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them
>> optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base?
>
> I would be very annoyed if it were no longer possible to netboot
> GENERIC...

I don't want to break that. :) I Just don't want to compile it in
unless I'm using NFS/ZFS, and on my 4MB flash boards I'm not booting
w/ NFS compiled in statically..


Adrian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomAX7cBuOfUgEW0UXcQ87Zie1_3Oad2rir5v97iEhKuCw>