Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 16:15:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alok K. Dhir" <adhir@bigdipper.umd.edu> To: questions@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: libc.a in /lib? Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950411160215.8949B-100000@bigdipper.umd.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hey all - I was wondering why FreeBSD doesn't keep libc in /lib instead of /usr/lib so that programs in /bin don't all need to be statically linked? Ocassionally, I find myself in single user mode without /usr mounted and try to execute some program which craps out due to the lack of libc. Then I wind up recompiling those programs statically. The end result is that I have something like a meg or two of statically linked programs which could happily be smaller if libc.* was in /lib (which would take up only 800k or so). (Yes, I know, I could change it on my own system, but then every time I sup, I'll have to change it again)... Thanks for any comments... Al
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.91.950411160215.8949B-100000>