svn commit: r284198 - head/bin/ls

[Julian Elischer]

On 6/15/15 1:34 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 20:53, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/15 10:48 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> On 13 June 2015 at 18:22, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I guarantee that no matter what you've worked on, there's
>>>>>> approximately five orders of magnitude of shipping devices whose
>>>>>> entire storage space can be measured in 1 digit megabytes. Each year.
>>>>> (And yes - there's an appreciable set of them for which freebsd boots,
>>>>> runs and keeps running on them.0
>>>>>
>>>>> You can buy em too, some of them even under $60.
>>>> Can FreeBSD now not run on these systems because of libxo?
>>> It's a tight squeeze as it is. Running in 8MB of flash (even if it's
>>> compressed) is still an exercise in "what can you cut out."
>>>
>>> My point isn't that it isn't running because of libxo; my point is
>>> that arguing about "embedded" involving "lots of storage" is woefully
>>> incorrect and will continue to be until those gigabytes of storage are
>>> available for a penny. Which yes, I'm guessing will happen in my
>>> career - but it's also quite likely code bloat will continue to chase
>>> that upward.
>> do we have a WITHOUT_LIBXO option on sources?  I believe we should..
> +1. I would be more than happy to implement it by stubbing out the majority of the macros to something less invasive, but it might be a bit before I do that.
> Thanks,
but that wouldn't remove the bloat within the apps.. just make it use 
null calls.