Re: DragonFly 3.4 release planning

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Dillon <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
> :> Binaries in /bin and /sbin are compiled statically, which makes them
> unusable
> :> with NSS modules.
> :> This is IMHO the biggest remaining issue with this release.
> :
> :Just curious - hasn't this been the case for some time?
> :And if so / not - why did this become an issue for you now?
> :
> :Not taking one side or another, just wondering about more background info,
> :though I do seem to recall a rather strong position taken *against*
> :dynamic /bin /sbin in this project when FreeBSD switched to dynamic
> :builds in the freebsd ~6.x-7.x era
> :
> :Cheers,
> :
> :- Chris
>
>     I think I'm the only one who is really against making /bin and /sbin
>     dynamic.  I feel kinda silly standing on top of the hill holding up
>     the red flag :-(.
>
>     I really hate the concept of a /rescue.  I could live with a nullfs
>     overloading of /bin and /sbin, but so far nobody (including I) has
>     thought up a good clean way to do it and still have the safety of
>     static binaries in single-user mode.
>
>                                         -Matt
>                                         Matthew Dillon
>                                         <[email protected]>
>

For the record, both Sascha and I are against it as well.

I think the cleanest solution is to compile in a pam module to kick auth
requests to an auth daemon that is capable of loading nss modules (or even
other pam modules). That said, I have neither verified that this is
absolutely possible within the constraints of the NSS API, nor do I intend
to be the one doing the work, not having any pressing need for NSS myself.

Sam