On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Maxim M. Kazachek wrote: > MOST people uses /bin/sh only for rc scripts (to be correct, their > system uses it). David O'Brien just tried to told, that NOBODY he knows > will be REALLY impacted by performance loss, caused due dynamic /bin/sh > linking. You will... So, because Duncan Barclay is impacted by > performance loss due dynamic /bin/sh linking, ENTIRE FreeBSD community > will have troubles (at least with NSS) due to static linking...
Actually, you appear to be agreeing with him, not disagreeing with him. Duncan was pointing out that he *does* use /bin/sh as his shell, in response to David's suggestion that on one uses it and therefore that making it statically linked wouldn't hurt. It strikes me that this whole conversation has gotten a little confrontational... The "middle ground" of adding a static /sbin/sh for scripts soudds like a reasonable choice, and has precedent in other systems (Solaris). We can set the boot and periodic scripts to use that, and interactive users can keep using /bin/sh. Someone must be using /bin/sh as a shell, because apparently someone spent a lot of time adding things like character input editing, filename completion, etc. We even use "sh" as the default in adduser(8). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
