Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jukka Marin <jmarin@pyy.jmp.fi>
From: Luke Mewburn <lukem@wasabisystems.com>
List: current-users
Date: 08/26/2002 18:51:44
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:50:04AM +0300, Jukka Marin wrote:
| On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 04:28:18PM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
| > | On a fully dynamic i386 system:
| > | 1506 /bin
| > | 1702 /sbin
| > | 1206 /lib
| > | 4804 /rescue
| > | 9218 total
|
| Hmm, why is this change being made? I can see it saving a few MB's of
| disk space, but I like the statically linked binaries because I feel more
| "secure" with them in emergencies ;-)
There was a proposal about this a few months ago on tech-userlevel
that gave further details of the benefits of this.
Do you build your own systems with
LDSTATIC=-static
in /etc/mk.conf (or equivalent)?
If not, there should be no effective difference to you whether the
statically linked binaries used to manage & repair the system in
"single user" mode are in /rescue versus /bin and /sbin. (Since in a
non failure condition, dynamic /sbin binaries will work in single user
mode).
If you do have LDSTATIC=-static, there will still be no difference to you
except you'll end up with some libraries in /lib and a populated /rescue.