Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:03:17 +0100 From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain Message-ID: <D92D6EA0-62F5-42A9-A802-8CF0D43A4D62@gid.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120428031212.GE80419@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <5BCE2E77-2B45-43B7-AB1F-6E6C13B87B34@gid.co.uk> <20120428031212.GE80419@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 28 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote: >>> Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh >>> is dynamically linked [etc] >>=20 >> That seems like a bad mistake, because it would prevent even booting >> single-user if rtld/libraries are broken. >=20 > When one enters single user they are prompted for which shell to use. > If /bin/sh is broken due to being dynamic, '/rescue/sh' will likely = still > work. Yes. You to have a statically linked /rescue/sh on board, so what's the = point of /bin/sh being dynamic? The memory footprint really isn't an = issue, and for my money the default shell ought to be bombproof. -- Bob Bishop rb@gid.co.uk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D92D6EA0-62F5-42A9-A802-8CF0D43A4D62>