dynamic /bin /sbin
Bosko Milekic
bmilekic at technokratis.com
Fri Jul 25 12:18:22 PDT 2003
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:04:58PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 11:51 AM -0700 7/25/03, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> > I am generally against doing dynamic. I feel that
> > certain entities that one might desire to be dynamic,
> > such as authentication, really should be *completely*
> > moved out of the binary and into a port service. Such
> > entities might include (incomplete list):
> >
> > * authentication
> > * name resolution
> > * locale
>
> If these issues can be solved without going dynamic, then
> there probably isn't much need for switching to dynamic.
FWIW, the nsswitch "problem" doesn't necessarily require you to go to
a dynamically-linked root and this was in fact one of the recent
topics of conversation on some of the freebsd lists.
Personally, I myself prefer the so-called "IPC" approach to doing
nsswitch. Namely, a daemon which is itself possibly
dynamically-linked and which may do caching, and where the libc code
talks to the daemon and has a local 'fallback' method.
FWIW, some guys at RSU (the russian RSU, Rostov State University)
claim to have some daemon code which puts us on the path towards
exactly the above-described model. This model does not require a
dynamically-linked root. I think that OS X does something along those
lines, too.
> --
> Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Senior Systems Programmer or gad at xxxxxxxxxxx
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih at xxxxxxx
--
Bosko Milekic * bmilekic at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * bmilekic at xxxxxxxxxxx
TECHNOkRATIS Consulting Services * http://www.technokratis.com/
More information about the Kernel
mailing list