On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:37:47PM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote: > For those who don't build the OS but install from binaries, this > makes the system potentially less rugged. > > One of the things I disliked about the Linux systems I've been on > is libraries that change and break things - for things which >I< > felt should have been static in the first place
We've always been more frugal with library bumps and ABI changes than the other projects so I don't see any immediate danger of that happening. I certainly shared your concerns until I learned about /rescue; speaking as a long time abuser of Solaris and Linux who has experienced the problems you mention. But I don't feel the same possibility exists for catastrophic failure without recovery here. For just about everything, dynamic linking is a win. There are some scenarios where it isn't. I for one understand your concerns; if static linking is appropriate for your environment, then by all means, rebuild the components you need with static linking. BMS _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
