Re: WITHOUT_BZIP2?

--n5jiFsHIp1iTVC5c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Enji Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote in <9CB15D18-A91C-4318-8834-38FE2FF682B6@gm=
ail.com>:
> > On Mar 29, 2026, at 9:34=E2=80=AFAM, Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@Free=
BSD.org> wrote:
> > We should probably drop both options outright, since we've never
> > provided corresponding options for gzip, xz / lzma, or zstd.
>=20
> If there was a way to build bootloaders without bzip2 support, that
> could save boot loader blocks for other things. That=E2=80=99s one case I=
 can
> think of where it makes sense making the support work as desired.

but this would need to be a different option, since you wouldn't want to
build the entire system without bzip2 support just for a smaller loader.

similar to how WITHOUT_ZFS and WITHOUT_LOADER_ZFS work today.


--n5jiFsHIp1iTVC5c
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCac/lOgAKCRD1nT63mIK/
YL/XAQD2gEXVEHnbp8sFCbenUcQox3iTRCPcTD51U+pRvMxRLQD9GiZnbS2fL3/0
mvFDG7GMA0XVnBLybKw1oxZZSXVlDw0=
=4WfL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--n5jiFsHIp1iTVC5c--