Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX
- In reply to: Ed Maste : "Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 02:38:55 UTC
26.11.2021 5:16, Ed Maste wrote > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 16:52, Eugene Grosbein <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> 26.11.2021 4:45, Warner Losh wrote: >>> >>> We've grown enough C++ support this is likely sane. >> >> How embedded-friendly is this? I mean a difference in required space for self-contained small file system. >> Comparing with 8.x/9.x, minimal FreeBSD image become pretty big. > > I'm not really concerned about this with respect specifically to WITHOUT_CXX. > > Of course it's important to support small images, but we need to do so > via pkgbase, nanobsd, etc., rather than poorly-maintained build knobs. > (Knobs like WITHOUT_INCLUDES are built into our make infrastructure, > and are fine.) I use nanobsd to build my images and knobs are main tool for nanobsd (though not only) to exclude unneeded parts of system from resulting image. That's why I have asked.