Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
From: Noriyuki Soda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/27/2002 04:59:21
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:45:43 +0200 (CEST),
Johnny Billquist <email@example.com> said:
> But if so, then I have another suggestion.
> Duplicate /bin and /sbin in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, and have them
> dynamically linked there. That would also mean that users paths could skip
> /bin, which in itself is a boon, since the path variable cannot be
> arbitrarily long.
That's more problematic than luke's proposal.
- if a user sets "PATH=/bin:/usr/bin", stuff which needs dlopen(3)
doesn't work with the duplicated programs.
- even if the user set "PATH=/usr/bin:/bin", some stuff which
needs dlopen(3) doesn't work with the duplicated programs.
e.g. think about programs which calls /bin/sh directly.
(And /bin/sh is one of such programs which need locale.)
- it consumes more disk space than what we have currently.
(c.f. the diskspace will decrease with the luke's proposal.)
- if there is another way for booting on a system (e.g. booting from
cdrom), /rescue directory can be removed on the system with luke's
proposal. but the duplicated binary in your proposal cannot be removed.