Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:10:16 -0600 From: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: new NSS Message-ID: <3E9F0A28.8030906@btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <200304171944.h3HJi1jK095151@strings.polstra.com> References: <20030417141133.GA4155@madman.celabo.org> <20030417144449.GA4530@madman.celabo.org> <200304171535.h3HFZEFs094589@strings.polstra.com> <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru> <200304171944.h3HJi1jK095151@strings.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote: > In article <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru>, > Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> wrote: > >>On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:35:14AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: >> >> >>>You might want to look at how libpam handles this situation. In the >>>static case, all of the known modules are linked into it statically. >>>Then they are located and registered at runtime by means of a linker >>>set. >> >>statically linking pam_ldap to /bin/ls will be a nightmare :) > > > True, but why would /bin/ls need anything from PAM at all? It > doesn't currently use PAM. > > >>we need either allow dlopen(3) to be used in statically linked programs >>or move to dynamically linked /. > > > Moving to a fully dynamically linked system sounds easier to me. > But in the past there has been strong opposition to the idea every > time it has been proposed. > > John Right, because everyone is deathly afraid of /usr/lib not being available and nothing working, or ld.so getting corrupt and nothing working, or beagles falling from the sky and nothing working. FreeBSD is one of the few Unix-like OS's left that isn't fully dynamically linked. If switching to a fully dynamically linked system is desired before 6.0 then it needs to happen before 5.2. I'm not opposed to this. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E9F0A28.8030906>