On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
The storage world is not limited to spinning hardware. Take a 512MB
CF, put it in a soekris box, and you got an embedded system capable of
doing a whole bunch of stuff.
Now, FreeBSD may no longer want to target such "niche" usage.
Sure we do!
See nanobsd.sh and
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/nanobsd/index.html
But the point is, if you are running an embedded system, it is almost
certainly in your best interest to tune it a bit, to reduce
disk/power/memory usage -- the default install should not feel too
constrained by the limits of embedded systems.
If you have hardware of that nature, you are almost certainly going to want
to customize other aspects of the system (and if it's an under-provisioned
system, are you really going to be doing this customization in-place?), at
which point removing the extra stuff is minimal extra work. If a developer
has to ask a user to do something (e.g. compile) in order to debug
something, there is a huge hit in the response rate; having the symbols
available in the general case can be helpful.
Then why don't you provide symbols for the whole system, including
binaries and libraries ? At least be consistent in your argument...
And, yes, I have patches for that.
Not really my argument; chance and POLA, really.
But that's not my call to make. (Are the patches public/in a PR?)
-Ben
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
