On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Richard Coleman wrote: > Robert M.Zigweid wrote: > > I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin > > to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? > > > > Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to > > have the same behavior? I have no problem with /bin being dynamically > > linked, but what if I want /bin to be dynamic and /sbin static? > > I'm not sure what that would accomplish. If a system was broken such > that the dynamically linked binaries in /bin didn't work, the utilities > in /sbin wouldn't be enough to fix the system. For instance, you > wouldn't have a shell or "ls".
And these problems are best fixed through the new /rescue tree. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the net space consumed by 5.0-CURRENT in / for /stand, /sbin, and /bin was substantially larger in the statically linked world than the space required for / with /rescue, /sbin, and /bin in the dynamically linked world. I.e., I can now update boxes installed with smaller root file systems from earlier 4.x releases without running out of space, whereas before I would run out of space. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
