Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:12:33 +0200 (EET) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: n@nectar.com (Jacques A. Vidrine) Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org (David O'Brien), sobomax@FreeBSD.org (Maxim Sobolev), naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber), steve@FreeBSD.org (Steve Price), freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ksh93 Message-ID: <200102281813.f1SIDkR54747@vic.sabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <20010228112329.A9192@hamlet.nectar.com> from "Jacques A. Vidrine" at Feb 28, 2001 11:23:29 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:16:30AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > Idea: why not to create dynamic executable, but explicitly link static > > > versions of required libs (cc -o foo foo.o bar.o /usr/lib/libc.a ...) > > > into it? The resulting executable will be protected against breakage of > > > system libs, while still able to use dl*() functions. > > Well, ld.so could still break, and anyway you'd lose the ability to Probability of ld.so breakage is quite low, much lower than any of the base libs, therefore it could be a resonable middle ground. IMO there could be 2 options: middle-case applicable in the most cases (i.e. dynamic executable linked against static libs) and fully dynamic executable for those who want to overload standard functions. Of course there could be third ege case (fully static binary) for those too paranoid... Just my US$0.02. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102281813.f1SIDkR54747>