Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: john heasley <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/21/2001 00:22:29
I vote, also, for leaving the setup as is. I never cared for having
everything be ldd from the get-go, certainly not 'init'.
It's also not clear what going full ldd really buys us. LDAP doesn't
qualify since there are third-party open-source versions.
The way it is now is not broken -- please don't fix it.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, john heasley wrote:
# Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:45:48 +0000
# From: john heasley <email@example.com>
# To: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
# Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
# Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 05:37:09PM -0800, Dave:
# > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Luke Mewburn wrote:
# > > A long-standing problem in NetBSD is the inability to call dlopen()
# > > from statically linked binaries (or even attempt to link in dlopen()
# > > with -static in some cases).
# > [snip]
# > Suppose you trash the dynamic libraries somehow. I greatly value the
# > ability to bring such a hosed system at least to single-user mode without
# > the need to monkey with boot disks and such.
# i second that. static binaries are quite useful (not just for recovery),
# as is avoiding the lame solaris scenario where some libraries dont have
# static versions.
NetBSD is much like a tipi: No windows, no gates, and an apache inside.