From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 29 23:22:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC57B37B6FE for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:22:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA67109 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:22:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id AAA21918 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:22:23 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200003300722.AAA21918@harmony.village.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Shared /bin and /sbin Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:22:23 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I have a system that has one file system on it (eg everything is on /). I'm finding that a lot of space is wasted on the multiple static copies of libc in /sbin and /bin. I was thinking about building, for this system only, /bin and /sbin dynamic. Has anybody ever done this? What are the implications of doing this. I can't think of anything that would stop this from working, but I thought I'd run it by people here. I'm aiming to have a system that is part way between PicoBSD and normal FreeBSD in terms of size. I need more flexibility than the PicoBSD crunchgen binary has to offer, but don't nee all of FreeBSD for the application I'm deploying. Comments? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message