Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Rick Kelly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/29/2001 15:59:33
Bill Studenmund said:
>I think it is more that the objections have boiled down to not wanting
>change as opposed to specific features of the change. Also, I don't really
>think the objections are the majority.
It just boggles my mind that anyone would want to increase the level of
convolution in NetBSD. So far we have stayed away from the mess of twisty
little passages that is SVR4 and Linux. Also, one should consider how these
changes will affect the performance of 68k and other very old systems.
>The fundamental point is that we want to be able to add locale support and
>new authentication schemes to all(*) programs, even ones in /bin and
>/sbin. We really need that to be able to move forward in a number of
>directions that I gather the majority of the project folks (including
>myself) want to move.
All of the binaries in /bin and /sbin don't need locale support.
>The way the ELF spec works, dynamic module loading only works in
>dynamically linked programs.
>Thus we need to dynamically link /bin and /sbin.
>Everyone agrees we need statically linked recover tools (they were in the
>initial posting as I recall), and static binaries will still be supported
>(you can make them, run them etc.).
How many megs of stuff does all this add to /? What happened to neat,
complete operating systems that can fit easily on a 1 gig disk with room
to spare? Or even a 250 meg disk?
Rick Kelly email@example.com www.rmkhome.com