sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
- Date: 29 Nov 2002 14:25:41 -0500
Ahh. Good arguments. Would it be possible to modify the spells to also
create static versions and mv them to /opt/sorcery-safe/bin or
something?
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 14:04, Andrew wrote:
> because if you have just one static copy of it, you use more memory,
> screw up the cacheing, and dont take advantage of shared libraries. the
> idea is to have a _backup_ of the real thing because normally 95% of
> the time we dont need static binaries, we really only need them for
> glibc. we are about having a system optimized by compiling from source,
> making all the core binaries static is a gigantic step backwards.
>
> I doubt many potential users are going to buy having 300-500k binaries
> lying around because we cant compile them dynamically.
>
> it doesnt hurt us one bit performance-wise to have a seperate set of
> safe static binaries lying around on disk, in fact if security is a
> major concern I would keep a set of them on an unmounted partition so
> if i get compromised and my libraries get messed with, i have a safe
> set of binaries on a read-only partition to fix things with, normally
> i wouldnt want to use them, and in fact id want to hide them. what will
> hurt every system is having static binaries because they each get an
> order of magnitude larger. disk space is cheap, memory isnt.
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 04:16:19AM -0500, Dufflebunk wrote:
> > What would be the advantage of having two copies of bzip over just one
> > static copy?
> >
> > On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 03:01, Andrew wrote:
> > > one alternative may be to have an alternative set of 'backup' or 'safe'
> > > utils. Sorcery could use those if a spell (like glibc) has the
> > > "USE_SAFE"
> > > variable set or something. Then you can have your nice dynamic
> > > executables
> > > the rest of the time.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SM-Sorcery mailing list
> > > SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
> > --
> >
> >
> > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
> > -----------------
> > PGP public key at
> > http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3327A9A5
> > F1
> >
> >
> > F1
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3327A9A5
F1
F1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Andrew, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
M.L., 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.