At 9:19 AM -0600 11/25/03, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote:

So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on
with life?

I still think we would be better off using 5.2-release for collecting more experience with the *operational* issues of having a dynamic /bin/sh. We all know and knew that there would be a performance hit. We also all know that a static /bin/sh will work fine in disaster situations.

That seems to have the most impact.  We can also expend
our efforts to improve dynamic linking performance, since
that will improve the performance of the other 99.9% of
the universe.

This is certainly my hope. There are more ways to solve the performance problem than just statically-linking /bin/sh.

If we do not alleviate the performance issues via other means,
then we can certainly statically-link /bin/sh for 5.3-release.
We have run with a statically-linked /bin/sh for years, so
there is nothing much to *learn* by running with it for the
next two months.  Yes, there is a performance benefit, but
nothing to *learn*.

But my fear is that if we *do* address the performance issues,
then we'll still shy off a dynamically-linked /bin/sh simply
because some folks will say "we don't know that we can trust
it", etc.

I have no objection if we want to statically-link some things
like /bin/sh for 5.3-release, but I don't think we need to do
it for 5.2-release -- aka "a snapshot of freebsd-current".

Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer           or  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to