Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:51:55 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shared /bin and /sbin Message-ID: <200004010151.SAA39111@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:25:32 MST." <38E533EC.30BE0E8B@softweyr.com> References: <38E533EC.30BE0E8B@softweyr.com> <200003300722.AAA21918@harmony.village.org> <20000330212950.A92062@keltia.freenix.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <38E533EC.30BE0E8B@softweyr.com> Wes Peters writes: : Whatever happened to the idea of putting the shared libs for /bin and : /sbin in /lib? People are afraid that it would mean more disk space used on /, not less. They worry that shared libraries are not robust enough to cope and your system will be completely useless if one file (/lib/libc.so) goes away. They also worry about duplicated disk usage between /usr/lib/libc.so and /lib/libc.so and possible version skew. I personally don't like the idea as default. However, in an embedded enviornment where the flash is read only, with spares on the shelf in case of failure (any failure) it may be an acceptible way to go. It won't save much space (my estimates are in the neighborhood of 3MB), but on a 16M flash, 3M can mean the difference between fitting and not fitting. Before this spirals out of hand, no, I'm not even suggesting that we do this by default. I was just asking if it could be done. So far no one has said no. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004010151.SAA39111>