Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Oleg Polyanski <Oleg.Polianski@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
Date: 08/27/2002 15:37:54
Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com> writes:
> > No, it doesn't. Otherwise, for instance, AIX is a mirage.
> AIX doens't use ELF, either.
On the other hand, it lets you to call `dlopen' from both
("statically" and "dynamically") linked objects.
> In the context of NetBSD, we're talking about ELF. I can pretty
> much guarantee you that a switch to XCOFF isn't anywhere on the
"dlopen() requires the ELF dynamic linker" sounds weird. I can
pretty much guarantee you that a "dynamically" linked XCOFF
binary, for instance, does really well without a linked in
dynamic linker. I am not prompting, however, for switching
NetBSD to XCOFF, even though some XCOFF stuff is really neat,
especially the lack of separate static and dynamic libraries -
you have got only one file for both purposes.