On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Bob Bishop wrote: > > On 28 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David O'Brien wrote: > >> 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] >>> >>> That seems like a bad mistake, because it would prevent even booting >>> single-user if rtld/libraries are broken. >> >> 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. > > 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
