Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:59:20 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain Message-ID: <225B99F7-00C7-4C1B-B2EF-8FE7F15A9F1F@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <D92D6EA0-62F5-42A9-A802-8CF0D43A4D62@gid.co.uk> References: <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <5BCE2E77-2B45-43B7-AB1F-6E6C13B87B34@gid.co.uk> <20120428031212.GE80419@dragon.NUXI.org> <D92D6EA0-62F5-42A9-A802-8CF0D43A4D62@gid.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Bob Bishop wrote: >=20 > On 28 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David O'Brien wrote: >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. By "default shell", I think you mean "the shell loaded by default in single user mode". That shell could be /rescue/sh. Single-user recovery does not require /bin/sh being static. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?225B99F7-00C7-4C1B-B2EF-8FE7F15A9F1F>