Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jason R Thorpe <>
From: Oleg Polyanski <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/27/2002 15:37:54
Jason R Thorpe <> 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
> roadmap.

 "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.

Take care,