Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX

26.11.2021 5:16, Ed Maste wrote

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 16:52, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote:
>>
>> 26.11.2021 4:45, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> We've grown enough C++ support this is likely sane.
>>
>> How embedded-friendly is this? I mean a difference in required space for self-contained small file system.
>> Comparing with 8.x/9.x, minimal FreeBSD image become pretty big.
> 
> I'm not really concerned about this with respect specifically to WITHOUT_CXX.
> 
> 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.)

I use nanobsd to build my images and knobs are main tool for nanobsd (though not only)
to exclude unneeded parts of system from resulting image. That's why I have asked.