From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May 20 13:02:17 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA12201
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 13:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haven.uchicago.edu (root@haven.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA12196
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 May 1996 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from woodlawn.uchicago.edu (root@woodlawn.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.9]) by haven.uchicago.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA00968; Mon, 20 May 1996 15:01:45 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from woodlawn.uchicago.edu (csdayton@localhost.uchicago.edu [127.0.0.1]) by woodlawn.uchicago.edu (8.7.1/8.7.2) with ESMTP id PAA03266; Mon, 20 May 1996 15:02:34 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199605202002.PAA03266@woodlawn.uchicago.edu>
In-reply-to: Jake Hamby's message of Mon, 20 May 1996 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Congrats on CURRENT 5/1 SNAP...
Reply-To: csdayton@midway.uchicago.edu
References: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960520095732.25403A-100000@covina.lightside.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:02:33 CDT
From: Soren Dayton <csdayton@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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