Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jason R Thorpe <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: current-users
Date: 08/28/2002 17:36:30
[ On Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 21:59:39 (-0700), Jason R Thorpe wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:16:28AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>  > Unfortunately it seems people are strongly pushing in directions where
>  > that option will essentially (though perhaps not actually -- just for
>  > what amounts to all intents and purposes) be taken away, even when its
>  > not really necessary to do so if some thought is put into the effort
>  > now, up-front, before a critical juncture is reached.
> Greg .. ALL LONG, we have said that the ability to build with LDSTATIC=static
> will remain.  You are either chosen to ignore that just so you can be your
> regular annoying self, or just plain don't read all of a post before you
> decide to pontificate.

Yes, I know -- as it says above I didn't say the capability was going
away in fact, only in intent.

Have you tried to build a GNU/Linux system, or even FreeBSD, all
statically yet?  It's a _lot_ harder on those systems (damn near
impossible without gobs of systems programming talent), and I would
argue it's because they have dedicated themselves to building
all-dynamic linked systems.  Slowly the support for static linking
decays and rots away.....

There's also the design issue -- things like PAM are designed only for
dynamic linking and you simply cannot use them at all without.  Choosing
to require dynamic linking for new features could easily end up making
it extremely more difficult to support similar things in static-linked
code.  Firewall vendors using NetBSD will not like this one tiny bit.

> Into my spam filter you go..

SYL!  ;-)
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <>;           <>
Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <>