From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 04:12:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7862A37B401 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 04:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta07bw.bigpond.com (mta07bw.bigpond.com [144.135.24.134]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF62743F75 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 04:12:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from areilly@bigpond.net.au) Received: from areilly.bpc-users.org ([144.135.24.84]) by mta07bw.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HG7005GNOGF9D@mta07bw.email.bigpond.com> for arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cpe-144-132-191-61.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.132.191.61]) by bwmam06bpa.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.2g 53/12102630); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:12:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 8310 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:12:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andrew@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:12:16 +0000 Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:12:16 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly In-reply-to: <20030606072909.GA26354@over-yonder.net> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" Message-id: <1055157135.1799.19.camel@gurney.reilly.home> Organization: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20030605221114.GB51432@over-yonder.net> <20030606063105.D3B442A8C1@canning.wemm.org> <20030606072909.GA26354@over-yonder.net> cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a dynamically-linked root X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:12:48 -0000 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