On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> [ On Monday, August 26, 2002 at 10:42:07 (-0700), Bill Studenmund wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
> > So keeping them static means that we say can't add new ways of
> > finding users (can't dload a module) at all.
> 
> I can assure you that I and many many other people will never ever ever
> want to do that, at least not on any OS with freely available source.

Also, if I'm running in single-user mode, or even worse, recovering from
soemthing bad(tm), new ways of finding users are not my top priority. In
fact, it's not even on my map. That is something that's interesting when
the system is up and running normally. (So, now we're back to the fact
that the same binaries are used at two very different times...)

> > Also, a lot of the locale
> > stuff (which admittedly you and I being roman-alphabet-users won't need as
> > much) needs dynamic loading.
> 
> The implementation of decent locale support does NOT _need_ dynamic
> loading.  That's just a quick and dirty cheap hack, not the only way to
> do the things necessary for full locale support.  I don't have all the
> answers for locale support, but I know all-dynamic systems are not the
> only way to go.

Thank you for pointing that out. We seem to have been taking that thing
for something written in stone here...

> I also know that I don't want it to ever be possible on at least some of
> my systems (and perhaps even all of them) for a static linked program to
> dynamically link new code into itself.

Actually, why is locale support depending on dynamically loading
libraries???

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol