Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:28:19 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>, Steve Price <steve@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ksh93 Message-ID: <20010228092818.C92203@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010228065758.A29047@hamlet.nectar.com>; from n@nectar.com on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:57:58AM -0600 References: <200102260514.f1Q5EHJ96328@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010226215311.A44937@spawn.nectar.com> <20010227154226.A36915@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> <20010227162104.A7892@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010228065758.A29047@hamlet.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:57:58AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:21:04PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:42:26PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > > > I notice that this installs the Korn shell as a static binary.
> > ...
> > > +.if defined(WANT_STATIC)
> > > +MAKE_ARGS+= LDFLAGS=-static
> > > +.endif
> >
> > I am very against this. It is not a bug for ksh93 to be built
> > statically, but the bug is in those shells that are built dynamically
> > in /usr/ports/shells/. Fix the right bug.
>
> What do you suggest? That all shells be linked and installed
> statically? Is there something that makes shells special,
Duh! Please think for a moment. Broken shell means one cannot login to
fix library problems. For those of us that sufficiently hate the stock
shells, it certainly is nice to be able to use their shell of preference.
Also, what about remote machines, or machines whose access to their
consoles are inconvient? One must login in as a mortal before su'ing.
The reasons the base system shells are static are the same reasons shells
in ports should be static.
> or do you want all ports built static by default?
Uh, where did I use suffient generalizations in my response to make you
think I was talking about the entire ports collection?? This discussion
is about ksh and shells.
> I would like it if all the shells in ports/shells were linked dynamic
> by default, but had knobs for getting static versions.
You aren't backing this up. I have given reasons for static versions by
default. Do you just hate static binaries, or is there a good reason for
wanting the ports shells dynamic? Please note that static shells
typically execute faster.
> Then one can have WANT_STATIC in /etc/make.conf (man, we really need a
> separate make.conf-type file just for ports).
Why not make the knob "WANT_DYNAMIC_SHELLS"??
> > P.S. What in the world is everyone's aversion to static binaries??
>
> Personally I like to keep static versions of my favorite shell(s)
> installed in /bin.
If I have to do this:
cd /usr/ports/shells/foo && make WANT_STATIC=1 PREFIX=/ install
I'm starting to loose the connivance of the Ports Collection.
(plus I'm also polluting the base system with all the extra files some of
the ports have that I really don't care about)
And I quite often use ``pkg_add -r'' anyway.
> However, ksh93 supports dynamic loading of commands.
Ok, for ksh93 specifically there may be a reason. But one can still use
static libs and use dl*().
> That doesn't mean that static linking is never appropriate, I just
> think that it shouldn't be the default for most people.
Then why not make /bin/*sh dynamic and put libc.so in /lib ?
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010228092818.C92203>