Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 06:50:08AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > far as I can tell, you don't understand what it is that we're doing. I
> > have never argued that we should change the default; in fact, I wrote
> > code so that it would be possible to set things up so that as far as the
> > end user was concerned, there was no difference at all -- root's shell
> > would still appear to be bash -- until something went wrong, and suddenly,
> > lo and behold, root would still have a shell. Secondly, I never said that
>
> Hello! You don't see that adding this piece of code you're pushing for
> will change things? Perhaps you all would get a better response if you'd
> agree to add your stuff as an optional package, let people try it for a
> few months (at least a release cycle) to see if it works and if it's
> useful, and _then_ argue that it should be the default...
Perhaps you should quote the next line of my message:
"Secondly, I never said that a static binary package should be of Required
priority."
I don't _think_ that we should just stick this in as a default package and
see if it works. Of _course_ we would test something (something designed
with the express purpose of increasing reliability) before making it the
default. I think you must be confusing me with someone else.
Oh, and by "change things", I meant in a user visible way -- ie,
installing this package makes absolutely no difference in how you use the
machine, your memory usage, etc., except for a bit of hard drive space (well,
my patch would put an extra 300k in memory for a few seconds every time
root logged in... which is negligible, and still optional). Personally, I'm
still trying to figure out how to implement this technically; once we have
something that works and is good we can argue about the politics.
-- Nathaniel
Reply to: