From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 20:11:08 2003 Return-Path: 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 F0C6B16A4D1 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7411A43FF2 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:11:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAJ4B5tp007013; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:11:05 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200311190202.hAJ22HrQ001087@dyson.jdyson.com> References: <200311190202.hAJ22HrQ001087@dyson.jdyson.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:11:04 -0500 To: dyson@iquest.net, gordont@gnf.org (Gordon Tetlow) From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:11:08 -0000 At 9:02 PM -0500 11/18/03, dyson@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@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu