:> :> :I supported the decision because: :> : :> :1. It has been requested for years :> :2. It benefits PAM and NSS. :> :3. It is easy to revert. :> :> Easy to revert? You are talking about depending on mechanisms for :> authentication and other things that WILL NOT WORK with static binaries :> as they currently stand and, apparently, will not work in the :> future either. Easy to revert? I don't think so. :> :> More like "Lets do away with support for static binaries entirely". :> Because that is precisely what is happening here. : :What the hell are you talking about????
What I am talking about is that if the intent in -CURRENT is to start to depend on things like NSS... and it really does make sense to be able to depend on something like NSS, then it will become less and less feasible to compile programs in a way that cannot use NSS. /bin/sh is an excellent example of this. Why is /bin/sh now dynamic again? Why can't it be static? I'm being retorical, but I think it demonstrates the problem and my point quite succinctly. Regardless of whether you have a dynamic root or a static root, FreeBSD is digging itself into a hole if it cannot use these spiffy new mechanisms with static binaries. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"