> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52:30PM +0000, Julian Yon wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:34:29 +0000 > > David Laight <da...@l8s.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:14:18PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > > > > > > Frankly, I still don't see the point why something would want to > > > > use it. > > > > > > How about running a staticly linked executable inside a chroot without > > > needed the executable itself to do the chroot. > > > > What does this gain over passing a filename around? (NB. I'm not > > claiming that's an entirely safe model either, but it's already > > possible). > > You don't need the executable image inside the chroot.
in other words: any executable visible on the system can be make present inside the chroot. i don't like this feature and would rather that netbsd did not implement it. .mrg.