From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 21 10:14:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D54316A4CE for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:14:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from 9.hellooperator.net (cpc3-cdif2-3-0-cust202.cdif.cable.ntl.com [81.103.32.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D5143D5D for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:14:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rasputin@hellooperator.net) Received: from rasputin by 9.hellooperator.net with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Cgh1z-0000No-KG for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:14:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:14:15 +0000 From: Dick Davies To: FreeBSD Questions Message-ID: <20041221101415.GA12067@lb.tenfour> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: Dick Davies Subject: re: bash- superuser X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Dick Davies List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:14:17 -0000 (sorry if I cocked up your threading, readers - I accidentally deleted Gregs mail and so pasted this from google groups). > .... There are a couple of reasons why this shouldn't > happen: > > 1. You don't normally start networking until you have mounted your > local file systems. > 2. The problem is related to the invocation of su(1). It's not clear > why that's there. > > Still, it shows that there are issues. It may be sufficient to > document them. People who follow the advice in "The Complete FreeBSD" > won't run into this problem, since they won't install a separate /usr > file system. I thought the issue was the ldconfig path not being set up at the point that pppd called su? pppd lives in /usr, after all :) Assuming that's wrong, doesn't freebsd have a notion of 'critical filesystems' and and 'pre-networking filesystems' a la NetBSD? I used to have to set this on netbsd to get wicontrol from /usr before dhcp.... > > and would be a non-issue if you statically linked bash (I can't > > think of any reason to want a dynamically linked one). > > One reason is that bash pulls in a lot of libraries. That's why we > used dynamic libraries in the first place. That's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it? :) People Who Know have advised me in the past that the VM system performs better if you statically link common binaries - you get better reuse of memory. -- 'The pie is ready. You guys like swarms of things, right?' -- Bender Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns