From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7433C1381F3 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3543F21C0A6; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5466821C083 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7367633DCA3 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.988, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.024, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NEFPMVdYTrJx for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:20:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C744033DC51 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:20:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TkLdB-0006HE-Fn for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:20:17 +0100 Received: from athedsl-355805.home.otenet.gr ([85.72.245.123]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:20:17 +0100 Received: from realnc by athedsl-355805.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:20:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:19:46 +0200 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com> <20121214213454.79e8786d@kc-sys.chadwicks.me.uk> <1687057.4tTYKEJzqn@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-355805.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: <1687057.4tTYKEJzqn@localhost> X-Archives-Salt: 631a573c-ffce-449e-ae40-cba76135a229 X-Archives-Hash: 35bf252e6c242124aed2b65d3de0a0f1 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 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.