Tim Kientzle said: > Richard Coleman wrote: > > It seems /bin/sh is the real sticking point. > > There is a problem here: Unix systems have historically used > /bin/sh for two somewhat contradictory purposes: > * the system script interpreter > * as a user shell > > The user shell must be dynamically linked in order > to support centralized administration. I personally > see no way around that. Given that many users do > rely on /bin/sh, it seems that /bin/sh must be > dynamically linked. > It isn't necessary for the shell to be dynamically linked (efficiency issue WRT the sparse allocations and greater COW overheads/etc) for the shell to programmatically link in a module for optional feature sets. This can even be placed under a libc call (which then wouldn't encumber the shell unless the feature was active and increase the footprint of generally all libc routines.) JohnReceived on Wed Nov 19 2003 - 20:47:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC