From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 18 18:38:03 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2757316A4CF; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:38:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D383C43F93; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:38:01 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	hAJ2c1iF096142;	Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:38:01 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hAJ2c1b4096141;
	Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:38:01 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:38:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200311190238.hAJ2c1b4096141@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
References: <200311182307.hAIN7Wpm000717@dyson.jdyson.com>
	<20031118182148.P35215@pooker.samsco.home>
cc: dyson@iquest.net
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:38:03 -0000

:>
:>    As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-issue.  Identifying which static
:> binaries need to be replaced is now a solved problem, replacing them is
:> easy, and if binary patches are used, there is effectively no impact on
:> bandwidth usage either.
:
:Bandwidth is still a concern for a lot of people, and this has the
:potential to save significant bandwidth in many situations.
:..
:Scott

    I would not consider this a viable argument since binary downloads are
    usually compressed.  A compressed /bin stacks up as follows (from 4.x):

    -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  4034560 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x1.tar		static
    -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   849920 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x2.tar		dynamic

    -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  1860215 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x1.tgz		static
    -rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel   354576 Nov 18 18:34 /tmp/x2.tgz		dynamic

    So you are talking about 1.5 MBytes less bandwidth, which is nothing
    compared to the cost of doing a full install over the net.  Yah, yah,
    /sbin too... but you get the idea.

    It certainly isn't enough of a difference to justify going to a
    dynamic /bin and /sbin.  I'm not saying there aren't other arguments,
    just that this isn't one of them.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>