Re: bash2 linked dynamically

2003-12-02 Thread Maxim M. Kazachek
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:48:45PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while. This line of thinking seems a bit silly to me.

Re: bash2 linked dynamically

2003-12-01 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:48:45PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while. This line of thinking seems a bit silly to me. We have a long discussion documenting the

bash2 linked dynamically

2003-11-30 Thread Sean McNeil
Hi all, I just sent email to obrien and I would like to encourage getting the ports collection changed to link bash dynamically. Hopefully before 5.2 release. It was the last frustrating problem I had with getting all the LDAP stuff working on FreeBSD-current. bash was displaying: I have no

Re: bash2 linked dynamically

2003-11-30 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:27:03PM -0800, Sean McNeil wrote: Also, I do not see any reason why bash should remain linked -static for -current. Lucky for me (who wants a static Bash), I don't have to make the decission -- ports are frozen and have been for a while.