Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:02:16 -0500 (EST) From: dyson@iquest.net To: gordont@gnf.org (Gordon Tetlow) Cc: imp@bsdimp.com Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <200311190202.hAJ22HrQ001087@dyson.jdyson.com> In-Reply-To: <20031119015433.GN30485@roark.gnf.org> from Gordon Tetlow at "Nov 18, 2003 05:54:33 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gordon Tetlow said: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:03:23PM -0500, dyson@iquest.net wrote: > > > > However, PAM and NSS 'tricks' really seem to be exactly that, > > and certainly worthy of special builds. However, that isn't > > necessary, yet still not building everything with a shared > > libc. > > Things like nss_ldap (which is used *heavily* at my place of employment) > are some reasons that FreeBSD doesn't make it into more places. It was > the reason why FreeBSD isn't being used here. Calling them 'tricks' > Firstly -- I was answering back the 'tricks' comment made that you had elided :-). Please quote the message that set-up the context for the usage. > > (and succumbing to the name calling you wanted to avoid) doesn't change > the fact that every major contender (IRIX, Solaris, Linux to name a few) > all support this feature set. > As discussed before, it DEFINITELY isn't necessary to dynamically link EVERYTHING to implement your favorite feature. Not everyone needs PAM/NSS, even though everyone needs memory management and scarce resource allocation. Why build in the overhead for everyone, and make it UNNCESSARILY worse (e.g. dynamically link libc when you want NSS or PAM?) 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.) John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311190202.hAJ22HrQ001087>