Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:12:16 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root Message-ID: <1055157135.1799.19.camel@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20030606072909.GA26354@over-yonder.net> References: <20030605221114.GB51432@over-yonder.net> <20030606063105.D3B442A8C1@canning.wemm.org> <20030606072909.GA26354@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 17:29, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > And all else being > equal, I'm fully of the belief that the increase in potential minor > calamities (which some manual /rescue/* intervention can recover) is a > small price to pay for some of the gains that a dynamic / gives. Is static/dynamic necessarily a dichotomy? As an example of an intermediate state, couldn't a nominally dynamic /bin be built, but with libc partially linked-in, in each case? How much of /bin would then have no further shared dependencies? -- Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1055157135.1799.19.camel>