Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/26/2002 10:24:40
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > > YECH! Is there a way for others to not make this stupid move?
> > > Can I set those values back in /etc/mk.conf?
> > Please read the thread on tech-userlevel. There are a lot of good reasons
> > for doing this, all of which involve now being able to dlopen() libraries.
> Please read my question.
Why? You're not reading other stuff in this thread? :-)
> I think this is extremely stupid, and I don't want to follow in this
> direction, so:
> Is there a way for other not to follow this (in my view) stupid move?
> But maybe I should take your response for a straight "no"?
If you had read Luke's post closer, you would have seen:
+ Static linking of programs is still supported; just set
LDSTATIC=-static in the Makefile or make(1)'s environment.
Of course, such programs will not be able to benefit from
future features such as dynamic modules for nsswitch, locale,
authentication (PAM ?), etc.