Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX

--------
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[1].

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

[1] 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.