On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:37:47PM -0500, Bill Vermillion wrote: > > I don't think saving that little space on the / partition is as > important as having everthing in sbin being able to stand alone no > matter what is corrupted. You are aware of /rescue, right? > On a non-FreeBSD system I had to recover, I had to physically take > the server from the colo to a place where I could pull the drive > to be able to run the recovery utitlities - as none of the dynamic > binariies worked. Did that system have an equivalent to /rescue? > One thing I always liked of the FBSD approach as opposed to others > is to make ever tool that might possible be needed in a system > recovery static so if it was there it would work. ls /rescure > > > > 2) Proper support for NSS. This will finally allow you to use NSS > > > > modules > > > > and get things like usernames in ls -l working for modules that > > > > are dynamically loaded. > > > What was done to programs like /bin/sh, /sbin/init and /sbin/fsck to > > make them work without access to /usr/lib? > > And even if they are accessible >IF< the libraries become corrupted > then nothing will work. That's certainly not a 'fail-safe' > environment. What about /rescue? > > I would think that instead of NO_DYNAMICROOT root in make.conf, > a varialbe of DYNAMICROOT be used with the default of building > static, and having the option of building dynamic for those > who need to save those few MB of space. IOW don't change one of > the things that has made the BSD so rugged and reliable for so many > years. Search freebsd-current for several discussions. > One of the things I disliked about the Linux systems I've been on > is libraries that change and break things - for things which >I< > felt should have been static in the first place You can alsway build any utility with "make CFLAGS+=-static". -- SteveReceived on Sun Nov 16 2003 - 19:51:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:29 UTC