On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:02:06PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
> rather busy organising the DevSummit. The notes for the sessions will
> be posted to various mailing lists soon (and summarised for a special
> status report), but since the ports and toolchain build sessions are
> already largely u
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:03:17AM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Yes. You to have a statically linked /rescue/sh on board, so what's the
> point of /bin/sh being dynamic?
While you and I agree on this, the primary reason we went with a
dynamically linked root was for PAM and NSS support -- which are
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:52:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> You could use /rescue/sh as your single-user shell. Of course, that would
> perhaps let you still be able to recompile things if you had a static
> toolchain. :)
Having the toolchain static has saved me in exactly this way.
--
-
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
