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 19:46:55 -0800
right and its less work to just install into a seperate directory then
rename all the files in the build file. We also wouldnt need symlinks
at all, just to put those directories with the static binaries at the
front of the path.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:28:32PM -0500, Dufflebunk wrote:
> 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
>
>
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
, (continued)
-
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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.