Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506191610170.7472-100000 at sea.ntplx.net>
            Daniel Eischen <deischen at freebsd.org> writes:
: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
: 
: > In message <20050619155228.Y6413 at 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).

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?

Warner