Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/27/2002 11:09:41
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:44:45AM -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > I can't see any benefit to this at all. Why make NetBSD more complex when
> This change *reduces* complexity; instead of having half the system
> statically linked and half dynamic, everything is dynamic.
> If a security patch for libc is released, you need only update libc
> and /rescue; you need not run in circles rebuilding all the statically
> linked binaries in /bin and /sbin and wherever else they might be
An important thing to note is that this change, from my point of view,
significantly increases the likelihood that we'll be able to do binary
patches for security issues in the future. It's reasonable to expect
that one indirect consequence will be a more regular release cycle and
a general increase in the security and maintainability of the average
NetBSD system in the field.
This is a good change. In many ways, it's overdue. We need to address
the performance problems, but we can do that -- so long as we do, this is
the right change to make, and now is the right time.