Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:02:33 CDT From: Soren Dayton <csdayton@midway.uchicago.edu> To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Congrats on CURRENT 5/1 SNAP... Message-ID: <199605202002.PAA03266@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> In-Reply-To: Jake Hamby's message of Mon, 20 May 1996 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT) References: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960520095732.25403A-100000@covina.lightside.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Out of personal preference (whether or not it ever goes in the tree), I'd > also like to reduce the number of statically-linked binaries this is all I get in /usr/bin /usr/bin/chflags: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable /usr/bin/gunzip: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable /usr/bin/gzcat: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable /usr/bin/gzip: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable /usr/bin/ld: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable /usr/bin/tar: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable /usr/bin/zcat: FreeBSD/i386 demand paged executable I think that I can handle tar and gzip not being dynamically linked. (and the gzip binary is only four of those!) Same for ld. What else are you referring to? > (i.e. move > /bin to /usr/bin like Linux and Solaris) and if you do not have a /usr filesystem????? I _much_ prefer this way, being someone without a /usr filesystem once upon a time > and revamp the boot scripts to support > SVR4-style /etc/init.d for safer package installs. I would like to see this happen. I find it much more flexible than one flat file. Are there compelling reasons for keeping the current structure for boot scripts. Soren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605202002.PAA03266>