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 09:51:43 UTC
-------- Ed Maste writes: > 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.) Just a bit of nit-picking and some commentary: At least as far as NanoBSD goes, that is a tautological argument, because slim NanoBSD images are created using WITHOUT_* options. WITHOUT_CXX used to be one of the good ones, it freed up a lot of space, at a cost of, as I remember it, groff. We should always have a few such supported "shaves a lot" options, if for no other reason than because the B-O-S does positively explodes if it has to do all the combinatorics. These days, WITHOUT_TOOLCHAIN is my goto for really slim images, it shaves twice as much as WITHOUT_CXX. Poul-Henning  This is why I wrote the build-option-survey in the first place :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.