John Polstra wrote: > In article <20030418014500.B94094_at_iclub.nsu.ru>, > Max Khon <fjoe_at_iclub.nsu.ru> wrote: > >>On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:35:14AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: >> >> >>>You might want to look at how libpam handles this situation. In the >>>static case, all of the known modules are linked into it statically. >>>Then they are located and registered at runtime by means of a linker >>>set. >> >>statically linking pam_ldap to /bin/ls will be a nightmare :) > > > True, but why would /bin/ls need anything from PAM at all? It > doesn't currently use PAM. > > >>we need either allow dlopen(3) to be used in statically linked programs >>or move to dynamically linked /. > > > Moving to a fully dynamically linked system sounds easier to me. > But in the past there has been strong opposition to the idea every > time it has been proposed. > > John Right, because everyone is deathly afraid of /usr/lib not being available and nothing working, or ld.so getting corrupt and nothing working, or beagles falling from the sky and nothing working. FreeBSD is one of the few Unix-like OS's left that isn't fully dynamically linked. If switching to a fully dynamically linked system is desired before 6.0 then it needs to happen before 5.2. I'm not opposed to this. ScottReceived on Thu Apr 17 2003 - 11:13:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:03 UTC