On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Glen Barber <g...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 08:50:34PM +0100, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Glen Barber <g...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > I do want to weigh in here and inform I am actively watching this > > > thread. clang(1) is not in disc1.iso or bootonly.iso because the > > > MK_TOOLCHAIN knob is disabled in the targets that generate them. This > > > has actually been the case for quite some time for these images. > > > > > > dvd1.iso does contain clang, but very rarely (if ever, actually) are > > > there dvd1.iso images produced for development snapshots. This is, in > > > part, solely because of the additional space/bandwidth required on the > > > mirrors (not just mirrors controlled by the Project, but third-party > > > mirrors as well). > > > > > > I am working on splitting out how the memstick.img and disc1.iso images > > > are produced, but ran into a problem which I'm looking into a > workaround > > > that is backwards-compatible. Since for USB images, a 700MB limit does > > > not make sense, and right now it just so happens that the memstick.img > > > is created from the same contents of disc1.iso. > > > > > > I know this does not help with the immediate issue, but wanted to chime > > > in with I do see and understand the larger issue, and am working on > > > a more long-term resolution instead of a one-line workaround. > > > > > > > > Good to see discussion, but my 5c is: do not enlarge regular install > media, > > it is hefty enough. I'd rather see it shrink, although without the > > limitations of old cd's rescue-env. > > > > Install media is install media, not live image. Live usb-sticks are so > easy > > to do on your own, why waste the Projects storage and bandwidth on it? > > > > For cases like what initiated this thread, actually. But, I'm not > looking to increase the disc1.iso size, but separate the disc1.iso and > memstick.img targets, which then can be created from different userland > environments (one with /usr/bin/clang and one without, for example). > > But, I do agree with you that keeping the downloadable installer medium > as small as possible (while still being usable for "rescue" cases like > this) is ideal. > > Glen > > Good good. I am in no way opposed to the "infrastructure" change of separating the targets, sounds like a bit of makefile-fun actually. And having tools to create memsticks from ones preferred environment would be sweet. Maybe someone could add a target in the makefiles for a rescue image, which basically would be the complete FreeBSD system one would get after untaring base, kernel and src? Best regards Andreas _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"