At 9:02 PM -0500 11/18/03, dyson_at_iquest.net wrote: > Of course, there was a development resource limitation, >but the decision (discussion) was made approx 6months ago? >(Enough time to solve the problem without a GLOBAL >performance hit.) Well, yes, perhaps. But there is that issue of "development resource limitation". Back when we did debate this publicly, no one stepped forward and said "I have the time to implement a better solution". Thus, we went with this solution. Speaking as to what we can do right now, I would not want to delay the 5.x-stable branch by adding some project right now to start writing an alternate PAM/NSS solution. If someone wants to write one for 6.0, that would be good. There is nothing in this solution which would cause problems for some later solution. Disk space will only get cheaper. I can see that it might be worthwhile to statically-link *some* of the programs in /bin and /usr/bin. Particularly small ones, where the added overhead would be a significant percentage of the total execution time of the command. But I do think we should stick with the present setup for 5.2-release, and consider any fine-tuning of it after that release is done. 5.2 is still "-current", and it is fine to leave this as it is for a "-current" release. And by doing that, more developers will get real-world experience with this setup, and find out if we have overlooked anything. [disclaimer: This is just my opinion, as one developer. I suspect that everyone in the FreeBSD project will agree that I do *not* speak "for the project"... :-) ] -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad_at_freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih_at_rpi.eduReceived on Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:11:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:29 UTC