On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, John Polstra wrote:
>
> > My position was (and still is) that for most purposes dynamic
> > linking is a definite advantage, but we should continue to permit
> > static linking for applications that want it (which Sun doesn't).
>
> I generally agree, except I feel that when there are cases where we
> can do useful things which rely on dynamic linking, we shouldn't let
> static linking hold us back. Plenty of people disagree with me,
> though.
Mind pointing me to the technical reason why (I'm sure you've explained
it before) we can't use the dl* calls in any way without linking
against ld-elf.so.1? I mean, have them in libc, for instance...
One option I don't think anyone's brought up: why don't we _just_ have
ld-elf.so.1 in the root, but not libraries? That way, we don't bloat
root excessively, but we can let people depend on being able to
build -static/-Bstatic binaries that make everything static except
the rtld? And modify gcc/ld to have static link with the rtld, so
we have the benefit of those calls, can have static binaries still,
and be able to depend on having an rtld (even for single-user mode.)
>
> John
> ---
> John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
> "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." -- Nora Ephron
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
