From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Jun 26 22:25:15 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from kobold.compt.com (TBextgw.compt.com [209.115.146.18])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD41037B401
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:25:10 -0400
From: Klaus Steden <klaus@compt.com>
To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)
Message-ID: <20020627012510.X589@cthulu.compt.com>
References: <20020626183519.F36946-100000@roble.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020626183519.F36946-100000@roble.com>; from marquis@roble.com on Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 06:46:42PM -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-security.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-security>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-security>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> 
> This makes a good case for doing away with static linking of system
> binaries.
> 
> Why does FreeBSD have statically linked binaries?
> 
I dunno, I find static binaries pretty damn useful as bootstrap and recovery
tools on broken systems that don't necessarily run FreeBSD but whose disks I
have to preserve.

Static binaries still have a purpose, inasmuch as dynamic binaries have a
purpose. I would be disappointed to discover static linking done away with ...
however, a system-wide compile time option might not be a bad idea.

$0.02,
Klaus

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message