Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: Rick Kelly <email@example.com>
From: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/30/2001 10:55:49
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:59:33PM -0700, Rick Kelly wrote:
| >Everyone agrees we need statically linked recover tools (they were in the
| >initial posting as I recall), and static binaries will still be supported
| >(you can make them, run them etc.).
| How many megs of stuff does all this add to /? What happened to neat,
| complete operating systems that can fit easily on a 1 gig disk with room
| to spare? Or even a 250 meg disk?
This issue has already been addressed in another post of mine, with
message-ID <20011226173707.C3231@wasabisystems.com>. It appears that
you didn't read (all of) that message.
To summarize what I said there;
A fully dynamic /bin and /sbin and /usr/* (as some parts of
/usr are currently static), with the necessary .so's moved
from /usr/lib to /lib, *saves* 10 MB in / and 5 MB in /usr.
A usable set of statically linked recovery tools can fit in
between 1.5 MB and 4 MB of disk space.
These recovery tools could consume 10 MB of space and the
resultant disk usage would be the same as what is used on
Therefore, a dynamic /bin and /sbin actually works FOR you
in saving disk space.
[Next strawman objection that's already been covered in this thread?]