From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 3 10:53:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146A537B401 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8282043F75 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id DBBD5140CB; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:53:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:53:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Paul Robinson In-Reply-To: <20030603164843.GB29331@iconoplex.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Sam Leffler cc: Andrew Gallatin cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:53:31 -0000 On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Paul Robinson wrote: > Ahhh, we're back into dynamic-linking again. I think you're going to find > two clear opinions on this: IMHO you forgot: 3. People who want to see performance numbers from a prototype installation so that they can quantify the tradeoffs involved in a large change which could be potentially destabilizing. mcl