Peter Wemm wrote: > What I would like is a minimal /lib, containing a few key libraries like > libc.so, libutil.so, etc and have everything dynamic.
I support that idea too. It's time. We can't support all-static systems forever. It's becoming a ball and chain as more and more applications use loadable modules with dlopen(). [Note to Terry: Aww, shut up and show me the code! ;-)] > Incidently, making / shared isn't the only way of doing it if you're > prepared to get creative and compile static and dynamic libraries > differently.... ie: dynamic libc uses dlopen() to implement the > switches, while the static libc does a pipe/fork/etc and makes a > pipe-based procedure call instead of a dlsym() direct call. *gag* *choke* *cough* > Nah, that's much too radical, they'll never buy it. Ya got that right! :-) John --- John Polstra j...@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-interest is the aphrodisiac of belief." -- James V. DeLong To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
