:No, what you said was "not to tear out..the ability to generate static :binaries". That's completely different, and is absolutely not what :has happened, or what is planned. Static binaries continue to be :supported, available, and work with the system NSS and PAM modules as :before.
I think you are missing the point I made in that response, because it isn't that cut and dry. Obviously isn't that cut and dry. Why is a dynamic root the default again? Because statically linking NSS and PAM is not the direction FreeBSD-5 is going. So if you are going to start depending on dynamic loading, and I seem to recall a number of conversations where that is, in fact, the intention, then you are marginalizing your static binary support. The more you use NSS and operate on the assumption that DLL will be leveraged, the more you marginalize your static binary support. FreeBSD-5 has *ALREADY* made major concessions, such as going to the dynamic root, precisely because it has *ALREADY* marginalized static binary support. That is what I'm hearing. What I am saying is that for something this fundamental to the infrastructure, it is not appropriate to marginalize static binary support. That is all I am saying here. Sure, I think an IPC mechanism is a better API, but that has nothing at all to do with this DLL / static/dyanmic binary issue in FreeBSD-5. They are two separate issues. Right now, in FreeBSD-5, the issue is the marginalized static binary support. :We're not talking about schedulers. What is at issue is that you :decided, for no reason appropriate to the topic of discussion, to :mention that you think an unrelated FreeBSD developer has difficulties :with logical reasoning. : :What the hell, Matt? By what standards of behaviour is this :acceptable? : :We have rules of conduct on the FreeBSD mailing lists, and people have :been removed in the past because they were unable to hold themselves :to them. Don't think that you're exempt just because you're Matt :Dillon. Yes, and apparently you are breaking them as much as you believe I am, Kris. You are also seriously misinterpreted my postings. I am obviously not advocating that FreeBSD-5 rip everything out and move to an IPC model. It takes time and consideration to be able to do something like that. What I am advocating is that FreeBSD-5 not marginalize and restrict (make less flexible) basic infrastructure in order to get other infrastructure working. -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]"