From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 17 21:34:06 2003 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C246916A4CE for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:34:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B0243FB1 for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:34:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42BC654B9; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29241-02-2; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from saboteur.dek.spc.org (unknown [82.147.19.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C8C65497; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: by saboteur.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 54E541C; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:22 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> Message-ID: <20031117044622.GA82821@saboteur.dek.spc.org> Mail-Followup-To: Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20031117042234.7A5FE16A547@hub.freebsd.org> <20031117043747.GB66773@wjv.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031117043747.GB66773@wjv.com> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current <freebsd-current.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current> List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:34:06 -0000 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