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-188.8.131.52-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.