From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 24 19:21:16 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 16C1316A4CE; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:21:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 32ABC43FDF; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:21:13 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	hAP3L5iF076037;	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:21:05 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hAP3L5dh076036;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:21:05 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:21:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200311250321.hAP3L5dh076036@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
References: <200311250214.hAP2EctT019845@realtime.exit.com>
	<20031124193139.C69870@pooker.samsco.home>
cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 03:21:16 -0000


:I supported the decision because:
:
:1.  It has been requested for years
:2.  It benefits PAM and NSS.
:3.  It is easy to revert.

    Easy to revert?  You are talking about depending on mechanisms for
    authentication and other things that WILL NOT WORK with static binaries
    as they currently stand and, apparently, will not work in the
    future either.  Easy to revert?  I don't think so.

    More like "Lets do away with support for static binaries entirely".
    Because that is precisely what is happening here.

:Now please move along and revert it on your local system.  There are far
:too many REAL problems out there that need to be addressed so that 5.2 can
:go out the door.  This is just wasting time and energy.
:
:Scott

    This is a real problem.  I have no problem with people who want dynamic
    roots to get dynamic roots.  My problem is with this intention to not
    fix PAM or NSS in a way that works with static binaries, and my problem
    is with changing the default from static to dynamic.  The result
    is, down the line, that either (A) it will become impossible to compile
    anything static, or (B) there will be things you WON'T be able to use
    NSS for because it will break static binaries.

    It is a serious logistical and planning mistake, IMHO.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>