Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:25:10 -0400
From:      Klaus Steden <klaus@compt.com>
To:        Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
Cc:        security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)
Message-ID:  <20020627012510.X589@cthulu.compt.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020626183519.F36946-100000@roble.com>; from marquis@roble.com on Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 06:46:42PM -0700
References:  <20020626183519.F36946-100000@roble.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 
> This makes a good case for doing away with static linking of system
> binaries.
> 
> Why does FreeBSD have statically linked binaries?
> 
I dunno, I find static binaries pretty damn useful as bootstrap and recovery
tools on broken systems that don't necessarily run FreeBSD but whose disks I
have to preserve.

Static binaries still have a purpose, inasmuch as dynamic binaries have a
purpose. I would be disappointed to discover static linking done away with ...
however, a system-wide compile time option might not be a bad idea.

$0.02,
Klaus

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020627012510.X589>