| 1 |
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:18:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > It should be moving in the other direction for stability reasons and |
| 5 |
> > busybox is no full answer. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On OpenBSD which has the benefit of userland being part of it. All |
| 8 |
> > the critical single user binaries are in root and built statically |
| 9 |
> > as much as possible, maximising system reliability no matter the |
| 10 |
> > custom requirements or packages. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> until a flaw is found in one of the libs used and all those |
| 13 |
> statically linked binaries are in danger. Well done! |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
How unlikely and is why you have test systems. Other problem this |
| 16 |
protects against are far less predictable. There is even a distro that |
| 17 |
attempts to statically build everything. It's worth reading |
| 18 |
that distros arguments for doing so in any case. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ch3.1 of fhs-2.3. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
| 23 |
Rationale |
| 24 |
The primary concern used to balance these considerations, which favor |
| 25 |
placing many things on the root filesystem, is the goal of keeping root |
| 26 |
as small as reasonably possible. For several reasons, it is desirable |
| 27 |
to keep the root filesystem small: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
.... |
| 30 |
Disk errors that corrupt data on the root filesystem are a greater |
| 31 |
problem than errors on any other partition. A small root filesystem is |
| 32 |
less prone to corruption as the result of a system crash. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
________________________________________________________________________ |
Archives