Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: None <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/21/2001 22:14:06
On 21 Dec 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> | The argument doesn't hold up well, given the fact that only /bin and /sbin
> | are static. If you want "static binary speed increases", then you can
> | simply rebuild the whole system yourself statically. You can do it with one
> | mk.conf switch: "MKPIC=no". 8-)
> If you really want to take advantage of the "static binary speed increases"
> you really want to crunchgen all of /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and
> some of /usr/libexec into one huge binary so everything is always memory
> resident (plus you get the disk and memory saving of dynamic linking too).
> When ya gonna add a "MKCRUNCHGEN=yes" flag 8^)
Actually this has a certain appeal for the 'ermergency static
binaries' in /<something_like_stand>. With a dynamically linked
/bin & /sbin and a single crunchgen binary for the emergency
versions the disk usage might end up at pretty much par to where
it is now...
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --