> Why most of bin (sbin) utilities are so big.
>
> For example,
>
> rm - 410 268 bytes,
> mv - 407 568 bytes,
> date - 423 748 bytes.
>
> Do they really contain only necessary code or
> have more than a half of trash?
Presumable they are statically linked; I believe 5.0 falls before the
On Monday 28 August 2028 17:52, Denis Troshin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE.
>
> Why most of bin (sbin) utilities are so big.
>
> For example,
>
> rm - 410 268 bytes,
> mv - 407 568 bytes,
> date - 423 748 bytes.
>
> Do they really contain only necessary code or
> have more tha
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:58:55PM -0500, Marc Wiz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:43:14PM -0700, Alan Batie wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:33:45PM -0400, Matthew Graybosch wrote:
> > > > rm - 410 268 bytes,
> > > > mv - 407 568 bytes,
> > > > date - 423 748 bytes.
> > >
> > > As
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 04:45:24PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Aug 28), Marc Wiz said:
> > Sticking with /bin/sh is a good idea.
> >
> > What I have done is build a static version of bash and put it /bin
> >
> > I changed root's shell to /bin/bash and run just fine.
> >
> >
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:43:14PM -0700, Alan Batie wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:33:45PM -0400, Matthew Graybosch wrote:
> > > rm - 410 268 bytes,
> > > mv - 407 568 bytes,
> > > date - 423 748 bytes.
> >
> > As others explained these commands and others are statically linked so tha
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Aug 28), Marc Wiz said:
> > Sticking with /bin/sh is a good idea.
> >
> > What I have done is build a static version of bash and put it /bin
> >
> > I changed root's shell to /bin/bash and run just fine.
> >
> > Has anyone noticed what
In the last episode (Aug 28), Marc Wiz said:
> Sticking with /bin/sh is a good idea.
>
> What I have done is build a static version of bash and put it /bin
>
> I changed root's shell to /bin/bash and run just fine.
>
> Has anyone noticed what a pain it is to build bash statically and
> install
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:33:45PM -0400, Matthew Graybosch wrote:
> > rm - 410 268 bytes,
> > mv - 407 568 bytes,
> > date - 423 748 bytes.
>
> As others explained these commands and others are statically linked so that
> they do not depend on libraries that live in /usr.
Once upon a time
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:33:45PM -0400, Matthew Graybosch wrote:
>
> As others explained these commands and others are statically linked so that
> they do not depend on libraries that live in /usr. Since these are very
> basic commands, it's a bad idea to have them depend on a library that might
On 00:52 Tue 29 Aug , Denis Troshin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE.
>
> Why most of bin (sbin) utilities are so big.
>
> For example,
>
> rm - 410 268 bytes,
> mv - 407 568 bytes,
> date - 423 748 bytes.
>
> Do they really contain only necessary code or
> have more than
Denis Troshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why most of bin (sbin) utilities are so big.
Do a "file /bin/rm" for example. They are linked static, so they don't
depend on any libs, but are bigger because of that.
Just try it for yourself. A simple hello world program:
~$ gcc -o hello hello.c
~$
In the last episode (Aug 29), Denis Troshin said:
> I have FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE.
>
> Why most of bin (sbin) utilities are so big.
>
> For example,
>
> rm - 410 268 bytes,
> mv - 407 568 bytes,
> date - 423 748 bytes.
>
> Do they really contain only necessary code or
> have more than a hal
Hi!
I have FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE.
Why most of bin (sbin) utilities are so big.
For example,
rm - 410 268 bytes,
mv - 407 568 bytes,
date - 423 748 bytes.
Do they really contain only necessary code or
have more than a half of trash?
If you think my question is very stupid to answer,
pleas
13 matches
Mail list logo
