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 <heas@shrubbery.net>
# To: Luke Mewburn <lukem@wasabisystems.com>, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org
# 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.
#


				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD is much like a tipi:  No windows, no gates, and an apache inside.