Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: Mike Frysinger Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug Subject: Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:58:15 -0400 Lines: 46 Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <55D106B2.9000705@tlinx.org> <20150817044932.GB1584@vapier> <55D396EF.8030102@tlinx.org> <20150819031852.GU1584@vapier> <55D408E4.9000500@tlinx.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0k24IdCjZr+ZpLJG" X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1439996306 26518 208.118.235.17 (19 Aug 2015 14:58:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu To: bug-bash@gnu.org Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: bug-bash@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55D408E4.9000500@tlinx.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4 X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:11395 --0k24IdCjZr+ZpLJG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline On 18 Aug 2015 21:41, Linda Walsh wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 18 Aug 2015 13:34, Linda Walsh wrote: > > (2) it's using the nss system which lets people drop modules into the system > > at anytime and change the overall lookups to use that. statically linking a > > specific subset would block that ability. > --- > The linux kernel is a perfect example of a statically linked program that > can dynamically load plugins to provide authorization data from external > sources. Static doesn't mean you can't support 3rd party plugins/libs -- > like LDAP. which is what the current glibc code already does and why you get a warning when you link things staticlly. i'm not sure how you can argue both sides of the fence on this. -mike --0k24IdCjZr+ZpLJG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV1JmHAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WByhIQAN8pljMST22pusaOI7jX8/z1 S+JAredIU8QANVgWZnGz+iew8S/TKwc50VEJGHKVMZV5h6PxFzQexIqysKaq1jco xkLNQA/9+HFZmjj+sl8AyDsYCLN/QwEqG4EgdPnql6HMcrBUS12qZyHrtDGDLra6 51GvdLRfMdcWLLbHYL4DwD09C4nupVTrdwUPJ0x13YYYqioxno7mxiUDCebZhFWO t0y6UTGbY7DQpEXBMS7r6mLyRFVX1WdGeaTvMehHHV8zCihyru/V/G2H7KWI0gkw ufjfId9Sx7tpYIPXkzZcZ5H4W27+L7nubHb+3WbT3sgKecTzVb5ACKTU6EZnqtuA rCYeccOHWtKqbsygr6MrCv3AC7T4gNxryljGQqu40L9Ru+nbCx9fPht6p/s+ZsMe f9JEzyhxjgd4fsuRXdOXPEukaK2LZD65PPkPmZdjMPI9gX9JSJh4neBBiNIU1pJe Mz17NiMbB1FRLPa9ru/imxyNoqHDmIhnSPodoiyL9SuieUmFtF4f30vRaUfLMhHx QQebEQZ1czHCVNoGi8HiI823dTw+bV3a/EFP6H7w1XOamD4ZdZQ4ZDvUqyLS6B17 dDF6AT0WDjhGnJja49P7b10t6RHMTN3ShPdsZdQtRBOjS5rW1KICt3hUdhkAjAjO 4SCWwcrfb6HAJyv/thXI =2kO1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0k24IdCjZr+ZpLJG--