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 22:28:32 -0500
That problem is easily solved by symlinks in a special dir, then putting
that dir first on the path.
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 22:12, Andrew wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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,
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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.