Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:14:15 +0000 From: Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: re: bash- superuser Message-ID: <20041221101415.GA12067@lb.tenfour>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(sorry if I cocked up your threading, readers - I accidentally deleted Gregs mail and so pasted this from google groups). > .... There are a couple of reasons why this shouldn't > happen: > > 1. You don't normally start networking until you have mounted your > local file systems. > 2. The problem is related to the invocation of su(1). It's not clear > why that's there. > > Still, it shows that there are issues. It may be sufficient to > document them. People who follow the advice in "The Complete FreeBSD" > won't run into this problem, since they won't install a separate /usr > file system. I thought the issue was the ldconfig path not being set up at the point that pppd called su? pppd lives in /usr, after all :) Assuming that's wrong, doesn't freebsd have a notion of 'critical filesystems' and and 'pre-networking filesystems' a la NetBSD? I used to have to set this on netbsd to get wicontrol from /usr before dhcp.... > > and would be a non-issue if you statically linked bash (I can't > > think of any reason to want a dynamically linked one). > > One reason is that bash pulls in a lot of libraries. That's why we > used dynamic libraries in the first place. That's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it? :) People Who Know have advised me in the past that the VM system performs better if you statically link common binaries - you get better reuse of memory. -- 'The pie is ready. You guys like swarms of things, right?' -- Bender Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041221101415.GA12067>