Re: WITHOUT_BZIP2?

> On Apr 3, 2026, at 9:05 AM, Lexi Winter <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Enji Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>> On Mar 29, 2026, at 9:34 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> We should probably drop both options outright, since we've never
>>> provided corresponding options for gzip, xz / lzma, or zstd.
>> 
>> If there was a way to build bootloaders without bzip2 support, that
>> could save boot loader blocks for other things. That’s 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.

Making it a dependent option though would be a good idea, e.g., if `${MK_BZIP2} == no`, then `${MK_LOADER_BZIP2} == no`. That’s what I was had in mind.
Cheers,
-Enji

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1KGu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----