Re: bash2 linked dynamically

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

>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
>
	Don't bother about it. There was a discussion, and some people
thinks that if something isn't broken (static linking), thne no one should
fix it (dynamic linking). Perhaps they thinks that Billy will test dynamic
linking in CURRENT and the performance will be OK... Maybe he will... But
OS will became Microsoft (R) FreeBSD (TM) then... IMHO... If we want to
reduce dynamic linking penalty - we MUST to do it... Go forward, testing
and fixing things, that gives us performance loss... But static is a cure
for these penalties...

   Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek
       mailto:stranger_at_sberbank.sibnet.ru
       mailto:stranger_at_fpm.ami.nstu.ru