Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:59:20 -0700
From:      Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>
To:        Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>
Cc:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, toolchain@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
Message-ID:  <225B99F7-00C7-4C1B-B2EF-8FE7F15A9F1F@kientzle.com>
In-Reply-To: <D92D6EA0-62F5-42A9-A802-8CF0D43A4D62@gid.co.uk>
References:  <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <5BCE2E77-2B45-43B7-AB1F-6E6C13B87B34@gid.co.uk> <20120428031212.GE80419@dragon.NUXI.org> <D92D6EA0-62F5-42A9-A802-8CF0D43A4D62@gid.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
>=20
> On 28 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David O'Brien wrote:
>=20
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote:
>>>> Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh
>>>> is dynamically linked [etc]
>>>=20
>>> That seems like a bad mistake, because it would prevent even booting
>>> single-user if rtld/libraries are broken.
>>=20
>> When one enters single user they are prompted for which shell to use.
>> If /bin/sh is broken due to being dynamic, '/rescue/sh' will likely =
still
>> work.
>=20
> Yes. You to have a statically linked /rescue/sh on board, so what's =
the point of /bin/sh being dynamic? The memory footprint really isn't an =
issue, and for my money the default shell ought to be bombproof.

By "default shell", I think you mean "the shell loaded by default
in single user mode".  That shell could be /rescue/sh.

Single-user recovery does not require /bin/sh being static.

Tim




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?225B99F7-00C7-4C1B-B2EF-8FE7F15A9F1F>