From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Feb 28 9:35: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [209.152.133.57]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A03737B719; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:35:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.2/8.11.1) id f1SHWE392391; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:32:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:32:14 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Maxim Sobolev , Christian Weisgerber , Steve Price , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ksh93 Message-ID: <20010228093214.D92203@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org 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> <3A9CF86E.18C36ED0@FreeBSD.org> <20010228091630.B92203@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010228112329.A9192@hamlet.nectar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010228112329.A9192@hamlet.nectar.com>; from n@nectar.com on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:23:29AM -0600 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:23:29AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > Well, ld.so could still break, and anyway you'd lose the ability to > use a replacement libc. I don't think this middle ground would be all > that useful. Other than for SOCKS, since ksh93 has network functions, why would you need to use a replacement libc? 97% of our users will never want to use a replacement libc. However, disk corruption and other system problems _DO_ occur. > For users with a clue, they can choose static or dynamic > and understand the repercussions. For other users, I think it should > default to dynamic so that they don't ask "Hey, why can't I use the > ksh-tk port?" I will claim that the number of users wanting to use dynamic modules with ksh is much small than those that won't. So why not put make the power uses have to use a special knob, vs. the majority? > or "Why doesn't ~user work where said user is in LDAP?" Uh, then if the user's shell is /bin/tcsh which is static, why won't this be a problem??? > > Which shell uses dl*()?? Why is this needed, and why complicate things. > > ksh93. See the man page under `builtin'. Then please don't object to "plain" shells in ports being dynamically linked. -- -- 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