Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:11050 gnu.misc.discuss:15322 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!bridge2!usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate From: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Taylor UUCP on FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <2ua21l$d4g@pdq.coe.montana.edu> Date: 22 Jun 94 19:05:25 GMT References: <1994Jun13.040754.17764@kosman.uucp> <RSANDERS.94Jun21155032@hrothgar.mindspring.com> <2u7tcb$6mr@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <RSANDERS.94Jun22110639@hrothgar.mindspring.com> Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman Montana Lines: 59 NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.90.192.29 In article <RSANDERS.94Jun22110639@hrothgar.mindspring.com>, Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com> wrote: >In article <2u7tcb$6mr@pdq.coe.montana.edu> nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes: > > >Well, that's a valid argument on Linux, but FreeBSD (and I suppose > >NetBSD) think that shared libraries belong in /usr/lib. I disagree, > > As a FreeBSD developer, I'll give a quick WHY we did it that way. > 3) Breaking up a standalone library for the root partition is wasteful > since the code will be also needed for other binaries. > >Could you explain this a little more? I'm not sure I understand. If we were going for small space one solution would be to break up the library into those parts needed for the root programs, and another for the rest of the routines. > 4) In the case of a bad crash using the Mach VM system in BSD systems you > *CAN* corrupt the running binary, which in the case of shared binaries > can be the shared library. (The way paging is done) > >You mean a file mapped into memory in such a way that changes >shouldn't be committed to disk can still get corrupted? That's a bug. Yes, it is. :-) (It may have been fixed, but things like this existed in 1.0+shlibs before all the VM work was done by David and John) >Although I normally find the FreeBSD developers as reasonable as any >people on Usenet, this is definitely from left field. Let's compact >all this discussion into a quick dialogue: > >user: "Hey, ash doesn't run some standard 'sh' scripts, but bash > does." >nate: "ash is smaller. You don't need the interactive bloat for > /bin/sh." >user: "Smaller, yes, but it doesn't work." >nate: "So fix ash." > >It seems to me that as one of the principal developers of a respected >and important operating system, it should be more important to you >that things work than is apparent here. I get lots of 'it's broken', but no details. I can't fix a bug that I don't know it's symptoms. 'It works for me' is my excuse. How about this. If you have a reproducible bug with ash, send me th bug-report with enough info. to track down the bug. I was given an individuals name in private email who was 'volunteered' to fix the bugs in ash. Good enough? I can't fix something that's not broken. :-) Nate -- nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu | FreeBSD core member and all around tech. nate@cs.montana.edu | weenie. work #: (406) 994-4836 | home #: (406) 586-0579 | Available for contract/otherwise work.