Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 09:27:41 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.netplex.com.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Libraries with library dependancies Message-ID: <XFMail.990410092741.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <19990410140348.6825E1F4D@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 jdp@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 majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990410092741.jdp>