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

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Richard Coleman wrote:

> Robert M.Zigweid wrote:
> > 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?
> > 
> > Second question.  This seems to imply that /sbin and /bin both have to 
> > have the same behavior?  I have no problem with /bin being dynamically 
> > linked, but what if I want /bin to be dynamic and /sbin static?
> 
> I'm not sure what that would accomplish.  If a system was broken such
> that the dynamically linked binaries in /bin didn't work, the utilities
> in /sbin wouldn't be enough to fix the system.  For instance, you
> wouldn't have a shell or "ls". 

And these problems are best fixed through the new /rescue tree.  I was
pleasantly surprised to find that the net space consumed by 5.0-CURRENT in
/ for /stand, /sbin, and /bin was substantially larger in the statically
linked world than the space required for / with /rescue, /sbin, and /bin
in the dynamically linked world.  I.e., I can now update boxes installed
with smaller root file systems from earlier 4.x releases without running
out of space, whereas before I would run out of space. 

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert_at_fledge.watson.org      Network Associates Laboratories