Re: WITHOUT_BZIP2?

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 10:43 AM Enji Cooper (yaneurabeya) <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > 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.
>

I'm not so sure. They've never been coupled before, and the loader BZIP2 is
completely independent of userland or kernel builds.

Warner