Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/28/2002 20:10:49
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:41:54PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
| On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Julio Merino wrote:
| # At a first glance I didn't like it, too. But after reading all the pros and
| # cons of the thread, I like the change as it is the best way to go.
| Only if there's a build-time option to preserve "Traditional" semantics,
| which it looks as though it might make it in (oh, please! Oh, please!).
This is a build time option - MKDYNAMICROOT. Set that to no to retain
the "semantics that have been present in NetBSD since shared libraries
were introduced", which were not "traditional" at the time that they
| I can see where it makes sense to other people, but please don't force
| this on me.
No one forces you, or any other person who strenuously objects to
any feature that they object to, to upgrade to a particular NetBSD
You "can't have your cake and eat it too". If you run decide to
continue to use NetBSD past a certain release (e.g, 0.8) to obtain
hardware support that was introduced since your chosen release, or to
obtain a particular software feature that you desire, you have to
accept that you'll get all of the other stuff that the NetBSD project
decides to implement.
Note, I said "NetBSD project decides". The NetBSD project consists
of NetBSD developers who design and implement solutions for NetBSD.
The NetBSD Core team (currently) acts as the final arbitrator on
If you don't like our method of determining what functionality to
implement, you are more than welcome to use another operating system
that is closer to your tastes.
Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>.
Speaking for myself.