Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)
From: Klaus Steden (klaus@compt.com)
Date: 06/27/02
- Next message: alexus: "new sshd 3.4p1"
- Previous message: Sean Kelly: "Another one?"
- In reply to: Roger Marquis: "Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)"
- Next in thread: Matthew Dillon: "Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)"
- Reply: Matthew Dillon: "Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:25:10 -0400 From: Klaus Steden <klaus@compt.com> To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
>
> This makes a good case for doing away with static linking of system
> binaries.
>
> Why does FreeBSD have statically linked binaries?
>
I dunno, I find static binaries pretty damn useful as bootstrap and recovery
tools on broken systems that don't necessarily run FreeBSD but whose disks I
have to preserve.
Static binaries still have a purpose, inasmuch as dynamic binaries have a
purpose. I would be disappointed to discover static linking done away with ...
however, a system-wide compile time option might not be a bad idea.
$0.02,
Klaus
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: alexus: "new sshd 3.4p1"
- Previous message: Sean Kelly: "Another one?"
- In reply to: Roger Marquis: "Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)"
- Next in thread: Matthew Dillon: "Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)"
- Reply: Matthew Dillon: "Re: Legacy Static Linking (was: Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-02:28.resolv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
