sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:12:37 -0800
the problem with that is that for example glibc uses ln and mv in its
makefile, not ln-static and mv-static, the idea here is a transparent
replacement of the tools when necessary.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 08:20:42PM -0500, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> 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.
> >>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
, (continued)
-
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,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.