> On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Dimitry Andric <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Ed Maste <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Fair enough, I'd definitely like to see fewer build-time knobs over >>> time, not more. >> >> Until we stop using build-time knobs to control what’s in the final image >> as a poor man’s packaging scheme, I expect the number of knobs to >> continue to grow. > > How does a packaging scheme solve the problem of not compiling in > dependencies, or linking everything static? You cannot pre-build all > possible combinations of selectable options. > > As for knobs that just say "build foo" or "don't build bar", those would > indeed be fine for a packaging system, as long as packages aren't too > dependent on each other.
Right now we mix build options for building things or not (e.g. WITH_SENDMAIL) with build options for things like this (WITH_SHARED_TOOLCHAIN). The number of the former is increasing all the time (with a big increase when Ngie’s work hits the tree). So in many senses, it is an orthogonal issue. My comment was more to Ed’s notion that these numbers will be dropping any time soon. packing the base is actually a hard problem because the phrase “as long as packages aren’t dependent on each other” turns out to not be the case as much as we might like. The base is fairly interdependent of all that since we have it as one big ball of stuff right now. Most of the issues revolve around dependence on the libraries and such. With patience and diligence, I think we can package the base, but it isn’t going to be a trivial slam dunk if it is going to be useful. Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
