Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jukka Marin <>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
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
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

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.