Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Luke Mewburn <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/26/2002 09:57:16
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Luke Mewburn wrote:

# There was a proposal about this a few months ago on tech-userlevel
# that gave further details of the benefits of this.

"a few" == "somewhere between nine and twelve".
"proposal" == "This is going to happen, so get ready and deal."

If I recall correctly, there was quite a bit of debate on this, and I
didn't see any clear rationale nor consensus.  Admittedly the rationale
seems a bit more clear...

Was ANY thought ever given to making it possible to preserve the current
static-root/dynamic-user semantics?  i.e. STATIC={no,yes,root-only}?

By introducing shared libraries as a static root, to my perception,
this introduces one more point of failure.

In single-user mode, I'd say that only init really stands to benefit from
this, really.  I don't see a single reason to rebuild the entire rest of
the tree dynamically-linked.

# Do you build your own systems with
# 	LDSTATIC=-static
# in /etc/mk.conf (or equivalent)?
# If not, there should be no effective difference to you whether the
# statically linked binaries used to manage & repair the system in
# "single user" mode are in /rescue versus /bin and /sbin.  (Since in a
# non failure condition, dynamic /sbin binaries will work in single user
# mode).
# If you do have LDSTATIC=-static, there will still be no difference to you
# except you'll end up with some libraries in /lib and a populated /rescue.

That should be conditioned out, don't you think?

The concept isn't completely horrid, but the mechanism appears to be
brute-force, all-or-nothing.  This seems much less elegant than NetBSD
has been thus reknowned.

NetBSD:  Can we risk exposing the humans to our advanced technology?