Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:22:36 -0500 From: Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@mindspring.com> To: "Robert M.Zigweid" <rzigweid@zigweid.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <3FB7A44C.1000002@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <B40D24A3-1843-11D8-ACF8-00039310484E@zigweid.net> References: <20031116051028.GA30485@roark.gnf.org> <B40D24A3-1843-11D8-ACF8-00039310484E@zigweid.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert M.Zigweid wrote: > I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin > to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? > > Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to > have the same behavior? I have no problem with /bin being dynamically > linked, but what if I want /bin to be dynamic and /sbin static? > > > Regards, > > Robert M. Zigweid I'm not sure what that would accomplish. If a system was broken such that the dynamically linked binaries in /bin didn't work, the utilities in /sbin wouldn't be enough to fix the system. For instance, you wouldn't have a shell or "ls". Statically linked binaries to fix a hosed system are now in /rescue. Check "man hier". Richard Coleman richardcoleman@mindspring.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FB7A44C.1000002>