[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fully supporting static lining in NetBSD (ar "zero" flag)
On 6-Aug-08, at 5:36 PM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
If you want to go through the pain and hassle of all that crap
yourself, feel free to build the OS from source (and turn on
whatever switch we use to enable building / installing the archive
libraries). If you want to link the entire system statically, you
have to do that anyway since by default the entire system is linked
dynamically. As I said in my previous message, we have to continue
to support the mechanism for sun2.
I hope you don't mean that in any way sarcastically. Sadly it seems
to me from your tone that you do.
However, I'm perfectly OK with saying "if you do this, we don't jump
through hoops to make sure stuff like PAM works". Or threads.
Well if the system only provides lame implementations of features
which result in them only supporting dynamic linking/loading, then
that's very short-sighted.
PAM, for example, can easily be implemented in such a way that a
static-only version can be built and used where all desired mechanisms
are statically linked into the system. (Of course choosing to use PAM
in an environment where source code can be used by _users_ to
completely rebuild their systems is a poor idea in the first place.)
The same applies to _every_ scenario where binary-only vendors have
tried to use dynamic/runtime loading of object code to support
additional flexibility in their distributions which might not
otherwise be possible without providing source code and the means for
_users_ to rebuild and update their systems _entirely_ from source
code only. This is even true of some of the gargantuan UI frameworks
which currently require, for _very_ naive reasons, dynamic runtime
loading of object code.
For example a simple patch in has shown that even the infamous CITRUS
support for locales can be fixed such that it trivially supports
static linking of all the desired runtime modules.
Indeed I'm not aware yet of any real or valid reason to _require_
threaded programs to make use of a runtime dynamic link-loader
either. PR #37454, for example, identifies an issue with the current
implementation, not a show-stopper that prevents use of pthreads in
What a horridly binary vendor centric viewpoint you have these days
Huh? In what way?
Much of the reasoning I've seen from you so far seems, at least from
my perspective, to be based solely on the requirements of binary-only
vendors. You construe (in other posts) that "modern" systems require
in some way the use of runtime dynamic link/loading of code. That is
simply _not_ true, except and unless you're considering _only_ the
requirements of binary-only vendors. It may be a _feature_ to give
users of binary distributions the ability to dynamically add new (and/
or 3rd party) options to their systems without requiring that they
rebuild their entire systems from source again, but such a feature is
hardly a requirement of a "modern" operating system.
I certainly don't object to supporting mechanisms which binary-only
vendors might find useful to support additional runtime features in
their distributions, but I think it's critical to maintain full
support of static linking too.
As such I also don't object to NetBSD.org, when acting as a vendor of
a binary system distribution, to choose to use dynamic linking and
shared libraries to as great an extent as is desired.
However I, as a contributor and user, would strongly object to
NetBSD.org, when acting as a vendor of source code, if it were to
choose to subvert and obfuscate and discount the relevance and
benefits of building the NetBSD source code base in a static-only
Indeed as a contributor and user of NetBSD I'm fully willing and able
to help as much as I can to maintain the ability of NetBSD to make
full use of all its modern features when it is built as a static-only
Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.
Main Index |
Thread Index |