sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
- To: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:20:42 -0500
Another venue is to create <spell>-static spells and make them build executables with suffix '-static'. Then create one spell basesystem-static to depend on them, mirroring current basesystem. Then, we'd have /bin/bash and /bin/bash-static. Is this introducing any conflicts?
Also, having separate spells allows more freedom for mixing and matching, and although the 1.0 version should have basesystem-static installed by default, I'd like an option to remove it. basesystem-static definitely shouldn't be mandatory.
Sergey.
Andrew wrote:
sure, you just have the BUILD file do two builds. The first is normal
and the second adds configure options to build statically and install
to a different location.
i was thinking having a seperate safe-utils spell that just does all the
necesary utils statically. We can probably do with just mv cp ln and so
on, we probably dont even need to bother with gzip and bzip. We really
just need the critical utils.
the safe-utils spell could be a dependancy on basesystem of course. we
extend the code for swapping between gcc2 and gcc3 when needed to use
the safe-utils if a spell requests it.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:25:41PM -0500, Dufflebunk wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, M.L., 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, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.