In a message written on Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:48:45PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the > decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while. This line of thinking seems a bit silly to me. We have a long discussion documenting the dynamic root concept, and how it was deemed important that /bin/sh be dynamic to support NSS and other reasons. Now someone wants the same thing in bash, and commit-freeze is going to stop it from happening? Sounds like the core team, or re, or someone needs to decide which is more important. If NSS is so important redoing the whole root is important, then I sure think any and all shells installed by ports should support the same features. If, on the other hand it's not important for Bash then why in the heck are we doing it for the root? I'm done arguing for either side of this issue, but I will argue for consistency until I'm blue in the face. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell_at_ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request_at_tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:32 UTC