Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:50:16 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: "Robert M.Zigweid" <rzigweid@zigweid.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <20031116155016.GA47866@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <B40D24A3-1843-11D8-ACF8-00039310484E@zigweid.net> References: <20031116051028.GA30485@roark.gnf.org> <B40D24A3-1843-11D8-ACF8-00039310484E@zigweid.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:46:47AM -0500, Robert M.Zigweid wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2003, at 12:10 AM, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > > >I just committed a patch to change /bin and /sbin from statically to > >dynamically linked. If you don't like the idea of using a dynamically > >linked /bin and /sbin, now is the time to define NO_DYNAMICROOT in your > >make.conf. > I'll admit to being mostly a lurker here, but isn't the point of /sbin > to be statically linked. That's what the 's' stands for? No. I think 's' is for 'system'. If you look carefully you will find that the commands in /bin and /usr/bin are those that are useful to normal users as well as sysadmins, while those in /sbin and /usr/sbin are commands that are mostly useful for the sysadmin only. > > Second question. This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to > have the same behavior? They traditionally do have the same behavior, so I don't see that as a problem. > I have no problem with /bin being dynamically > linked, but what if I want /bin to be dynamic and /sbin static? Why? If you can't use the commands in /bin due to problems with dynamic linking you are unlikely to be helped by the commands in /sbin being statically linked. (For one thing you won't be able to get a shell since those normally reside in /bin.) -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031116155016.GA47866>