On Jun 14, 2015, at 20:53, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 6/14/15 10:48 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 13 June 2015 at 18:22, Craig Rodrigues <rodr...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@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,
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
