Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:22 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <20031117044622.GA82821@saboteur.dek.spc.org> In-Reply-To: <20031117043747.GB66773@wjv.com> References: <20031117042234.7A5FE16A547@hub.freebsd.org> <20031117043747.GB66773@wjv.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:37:47PM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote: > For those who don't build the OS but install from binaries, this > makes the system potentially less rugged. > > One of the things I disliked about the Linux systems I've been on > is libraries that change and break things - for things which >I< > felt should have been static in the first place We've always been more frugal with library bumps and ABI changes than the other projects so I don't see any immediate danger of that happening. I certainly shared your concerns until I learned about /rescue; speaking as a long time abuser of Solaris and Linux who has experienced the problems you mention. But I don't feel the same possibility exists for catastrophic failure without recovery here. For just about everything, dynamic linking is a win. There are some scenarios where it isn't. I for one understand your concerns; if static linking is appropriate for your environment, then by all means, rebuild the components you need with static linking. BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031117044622.GA82821>