Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:59:19 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <200011100959.eAA9xJ905757@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:38:41 MST." <200011100938.CAA48105@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <3A0BBD01.ED1EF33E@newsguy.com> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
> : John Baldwin wrote:
> : >
> : > > NO_STATIC_BINARIES
> : > > NO_STATIC_LIBRARIES
> : > >
> : > > (and obviously NOPROFILE -> NO_PROFILED_LIBRARIES with a hook to force
> : > > people to change)
> : >
> : > I second these names.
> :
> : Actually, the _p libraries haven't been "profiled". They are "profile"
> : libraries, in that they are used for "profiling". So,
> : NO_PROFILE_LIBRARIES, please.
>
> BTW, I don't like NO_STATIC_BINARIES because that implies no static
> binaries anywhere, while my patch specifically just does /bin and
> /sbin. I didn't want to do that globally because I didn't want jdp to
> yell at me for making ld.so dynamic :-)
I think "NO_STATIC_BINARIES" should make everything dynamic that can be
made dynamic, so your limited functionality change is probably right.
--
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011100959.eAA9xJ905757>