Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked

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_at_student.uu.se