Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:41:03 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: root /etc/csh Message-ID: <20081116104103.GA98266@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <491fd833.zbV%2Bim4fHqUJ5RRJ%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20081110203643.GH27646@obspm.fr> <200811102235.46971.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0811102239200.846@hmacs.cmi.ua.ac.be> <4ad871310811101530p7b2baa0fk7f7b5118e314c11d@mail.gmail.com> <4918CE42.3050504@ccstores.com> <20081115061957.GA10998@ourbrains.org> <20081116023239.GA89267@icarus.home.lan> <20081116033624.GA13618@ourbrains.org> <20081116050107.GA91940@icarus.home.lan> <491fd833.zbV%2Bim4fHqUJ5RRJ%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:22:11AM -0800, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > 3) You can build bash statically; make WITH_STATIC_BASH=true. I do > > not know the true reason why the port is not built statically by > > default, but I can give you a damn good reason why it shouldn't be: > > complete and total wasted memory. > > > > Take into consideration environments where there are hundreds (or at > > my place of work, thousands) of users logged into a machine at once. > > Many of those are going to have /usr/local/bin/bash as their shell. > > A statically-linked version of bash would waste significant amounts > > of memory, while a dynamically-linked/shared version would ease that > > pain. The same applies for any static vs. dynamic program. > > How so? Wouldn't a single in-memory instance of the bash text > segment be shared among all bash processes, across all users? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-August/thread.html#36647 > A better reason is that security updates to shared libs often > update only the .so files, expecting the binaries that use them > to automatically pick up the new versions. Any static executable > should be rebuilt any time there is a security update to a shared > lib that it would be using were it linked dynamically. Yup, that's another reason. > That said, perhaps it would be reasonable for shell ports to > build both a dynamically-linked instance to be installed in > /usr/local/bin, and a statically-linked instance to be installed > in, say, /usr/local/static. Those who want to use bash as the > root shell could copy it from there to /bin or /sbin. This part of the thread should be moved to freebsd-ports, or obrien@ pulled in here. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081116104103.GA98266>