From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 2 16:18:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B946C37B404 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EA143FAF for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:18:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h52NHxwk004463; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h52NHxfA001704; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h52NHxdX001703; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:17:59 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Gordon Tetlow Message-ID: <20030602231759.GE1345@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030602171942.GA87863@roark.gnf.org> <20030602202947.GE87863@roark.gnf.org> <200306022125.h52LPhhc002291@apollo.backplane.com> <20030602214956.GG87863@roark.gnf.org> <20030602224734.GC1345@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030602225807.GI87863@roark.gnf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030602225807.GI87863@roark.gnf.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:18:02 -0000 On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:58:07PM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > > My hope is to do just that and make it as painless as possible to > switch. It's non-trivial and considering the easy with which foot- > shooting can commence, I hestiate to ask people to touch any of my > patches. Fair enough. > I'm trying to provide options. I'm encouraging a dynamic world (and > think it's the correct solution for 5.2, esp if we are going to be > touting our NSS support). Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I can't recall seeing a technical reason why we should not *allow* a shared world (I've seen technical reasons why we should allow it). Most, if not all resistence is about making it the default (AFAICT). Let's allow it first. Have a bike shed about the default later. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net