Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801
From: M. Warner Losh (imp_at_bsdimp.com)
Date: 06/20/05
- Previous message: Robert Watson: "Re: dhclient less functional with nanobsd because of NO_CXX"
- In reply to: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801"
- Next in thread: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801"
- Reply: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:13:44 -0600 (MDT) To: deischen@FreeBSD.org
In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201507010.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
: > Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> writes:
: > : 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).
: >
: > What's wrong with making sure that NO_FOO will work in the install
: > case to not install foo when it is set, even if it was unset in the
: > build process?
:
: If it works or can be made to work, then nothing.
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.
Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Robert Watson: "Re: dhclient less functional with nanobsd because of NO_CXX"
- In reply to: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801"
- Next in thread: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801"
- Reply: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|