[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:41:42 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: filesystem layout
On 09/25/2012 03:09 PM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> writes:
>
>> On 09/25/2012 01:26 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Static linking could be dangerous from a security/maintainance
>>>> standpoint, but that is me looking at the specific scenarios in which
>>>> Gentoo shines.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a common myth. lazy or ineffective system management is a
>>> danger regardless of the linking type.
>>
>> Spending lots of time unbundling dependencies from packages so they
>> could use the up-to-date shared version might bring you to have a bias.
>>
>> Any system management that force you to reinstall all your packages
>> because zlib had a bug doesn't seem efficient.
>
> Note that you need to *restart all programs using zlib* anyway.
> So what's the difference between
>
> tar xzpf base.tar.gz
> and
> tar xzpf zlib.tar.gz
I guess the whole thing is derailing. You assume that you have a daemon
or some kind of permanent program, I'm considering all the programs,
permanent and transient.
Even in your scenario
sys-libs/zlib-1.2.5.1-r2: 31 files, 16 non-files, 767.242 KB
Updating zlib would take less than 1mb uncompressed.
Updating a whole system few order of magnitude.
Again, we are derailing the purpose of this mailing list.
The original question could be summarized as "would musl require a
specific filesystem layout or non-fhs could be used easily?" and the
answer IMHO is that there isn't much in libc that requires a specific
layout.
lu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
