Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:09:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: asbestos suited static vi Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980414205515.17677B-100000@shell.futuresouth.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ bcc'd to -hackers to reap some opinions, discussion to -chat] OK, there are many people against having a static linked vi by default. I agree with many of the reasons given that it would be a Bad Thing (tm) in the default. That said, it DOES offer additional capabilities and flexibility; I can't imagine anyone that would argue that. These come at a sacrifice which many are not willing to make. What would be the interest in a package'd static linked vi and supplementary fi les, and/or a source patch, so you can choose to have a static vi in /bin if you choose? Several people have expresses at least academic interest in it. So I think I may give it a stab. What advice can anyone offer, caevets, wish list, etc in this? Maybe eventually a set of packages of static binaries (shells, editors, etc) that someone might want to plop into their oversized / partition... but let's not get ahead of ourselves. IS there any interest, or any thoughts? *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | FreeBSD; the way computers were meant to be | * "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is * | that I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet."| * fullermd@futuresouth.com :-} MAtthew Fuller * | http://keystone.westminster.edu/~fullermd | *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980414205515.17677B-100000>