From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 8 18:48:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3C337B4C5 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:48:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eA92mdN05702; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:48:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:48:39 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Warner Losh Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <20001108184838.L5112@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200011090155.SAA35024@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200011090155.SAA35024@harmony.village.org>; from imp@village.org on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 06:55:29PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Warner Losh [001108 17:55] wrote: > > I have a patch that makes /bin and /sbin optionally non-static. For > small systems that have / and /usr on the same file system, you can > save about 5M-6M of disk space by making /bin and /sbin shared. > > Since this is undesirable for systems that have / and /usr on > different file systems, I thought I'd make an option. > > What should I call the option? > > I'm thinking SLASHED_SHARED, but that's a horrible name. > > I've already rejected DANGEROUS_SBIN_BIN_SHARED_OPTION as being too > long I was going to say "DYNAMIC_BINARIES" but that sounds too much like a staurday morning cartoon show... how about DYNAMIC_BIN_SBIN? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message