From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 30 3:52:28 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from not.demophon.com (vpn.iscape.fi [195.170.146.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EBE37B6E3 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:52:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from will@not.demophon.com) Received: (from will@localhost) by not.demophon.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA10716; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:48:48 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from will) To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shared /bin and /sbin References: <200003300722.AAA21918@harmony.village.org> From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Date: 30 Mar 2000 14:48:48 +0300 In-Reply-To: imp@village.org's message of "30 Mar 2000 10:23:30 +0300" Message-ID: <86hfdovftr.fsf@not.demophon.com> Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG imp@village.org (Warner Losh) writes: > 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've done this, and did manage to get an almost complete system into a reasonably small space. It was 2.2.x, but I wouldn't expect any special new requirements with more current versions. IIRC it didn't require much more than fixing the appropriate Makefile.incs in the source tree. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message