Peter Wemm writes:
We need nsswitch type functionality in /bin/sh. To the people who want to
make it static, lets see some static binary dlopen() support or a nsswitch
proxy system.
Maybe this is just nieve, but I always thought that it was the
responsibility of the party introducing the
: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
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Ding! Oh god, not another one! *plonk*
:
:We need nsswitch type functionality in /bin/sh. To the people who want to
:make it static, lets see some static binary dlopen() support or a nsswitch
:proxy system.
:
:If half as much effort had been
In the last episode (Nov 24), Scott Long said:
I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of
this.
Also, I'm really starting to resent you using the FreeBSD mailing
lists as an advocacy channel for DragonFly. I fail to see how
FreeBSD 4.x and DFBSD relate to FreeBSD
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: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
:
: :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
:
:I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of
:this.
:
:Also, I'm really starting to resent you using the FreeBSD mailing lists as
:an advocacy channel for DragonFly. I fail to see how FreeBSD 4.x and
:DFBSD relate to FreeBSD 5-current, which is the overall topic of this
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: 1) Microbenchmark:40% worse
: 2) Bootstone(*): 25% worse
: 3) Ports: 16% worse
Thanks for the real numbers.
Warner
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:I think that you forgot to attach the patches that demonstrate all of
:this.
:
:Also, I'm really starting to resent you using the FreeBSD mailing lists as
:an advocacy channel for DragonFly. I fail to see how FreeBSD 4.x and
:DFBSD relate to
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 12:20, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
OK my bad, it will probably slow down the ports building.
I'll bet a larger percentage of our users build ports than need nss or
ldap.
Err, yes..
Of course you are claiming it should be either/or, which is not very
reasonable.
What
PW Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:21 -0800
PW From: Peter Wemm
PW We need nsswitch type functionality in /bin/sh. To the
PW people who want to make it static, lets see some static
PW binary dlopen() support or a nsswitch proxy system.
I started a new thread inquiring about the challenges
On Monday 24 November 2003 07:06 pm, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
M. Warner Losh writes:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm just saying that most of the developers I'm talking to on IRC say
this tread is insane, has no content and they are blowing it off
because of that. A concrete, real
And I just did a make clean run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually
mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn):
static: 96.63 real53.45 user39.27 sys
dynamic: 112.42 real55.51 user51.62 sys
The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:55:31PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Daniel O'Connor writes:
Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago?
In the orginal thread, there was an agreement that the performance
would be measured BEFORE the default was changed, and the default
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
