On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Max Herrgard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:22:29PM +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote: > > Besides, this whole static binaries in / at all cost business seems to be > > based on groundless fears. > > Other Unix-like operating systems have been using dynamic libraries for > their > > root filesystems for many years and I have yet to encounter a case where > > this caused real issues and rescue binaries saved the day. > I've been saved by exactly that in more than one instance on DFly: when /usr wasn't available (was on a separate partition; still the default for UFS installs); when the libc/etc.. were out of sync with the binaries in question. Also another thing to consider -- static binaries can fork/exec faster than their dynamic equivalents generally; for sh, this might actually be important, considering how often it is invoked. -- vs;
