Re: dynamic /bin /sbin

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx>]

-On [20030724 03:02], ibotty (me@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>(consider someone using dragonfly-stable, he will not likely corrupt his
>libc, but one security alert may pop up in libc. he will have to rebuild
>/bin and /sbin... and he does loose much space.)

Much space where?

bin's object tree is only about 7 MB, sbin's 17 MB.  If a typical
installation cannot measure up to 24 MB for a rebuild of bin and sbin I
guess there's worse problems on that particular installation.

And don't tell me it is needed for embedded targets, they either do
flash updates, or cross compilations.

>btw: it should be possible, to always have one *working* libc, so that
>depending on LD_PRELOAD (or something more sophisticated, once you get to
>environments), this working libc could be used.

How many libc's do you want to have on an installation? :)
And who or what guarantees that the libc you have is working correctly?

I am still trying to see the benefit over a static bin and sbin.  I
mean, come on, /bin is only 4 MB and /sbin only 12 MB.

(Funny aside though: /bin/rmail is dynamically linked on 4.8-STABLE, not
statically.  And like its manual page says: what on earth is it doing in
/bin?
Same goes for /sbin/mount_smbfs, also dynamically linked.)

So give me some good reasons not to stay static?

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/diary/
Sometimes the Heart wanders in fantasies, keeping the mind in its power
constantly...