On 15/12/12 12:18, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2012, 21:34:54 schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:53:35 -0800
Mark Knecht <[email protected]> wrote:
I guess the other question that's lurking here for me is why do you
have /usr on a separate partition? What's the usage model that drives
a person to do that? The most I've ever done is move /usr/portage and
/usr/src to other places. My /usr never has all that much in it beyond
those two directories, along with maybe /usr/share. Would it not be
easier for you in the long run to move /usr back to / and not have to
deal with this question at all?
It should be moving in the other direction for stability reasons and
busybox is no full answer.
On OpenBSD which has the benefit of userland being part of it. All the
critical single user binaries are in root and built statically as much
as possible, maximising system reliability no matter the custom
requirements or packages.
until a flaw is found in one of the libs used and all those statically linked
binaries are in danger. Well done!
I don't see why this would only affect statically linked executables.
If a bug is found in a library, all dynamically linked executables are
affected as well. When the BSD packagers put out an update for the
library, they'll also put updates for the static binaries that use it.
I don't see any security issue here.
