From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2010
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: filesystem layout
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:09:45 +0200
Message-ID: <87d31agsfa.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <CAPLrYERD+Tu02rRFjap-edPegLbSufbRc=RJ1qjW4OzFef+dVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50618D43.2000704@gentoo.org>
	<CAPLrYETQtyn6gWFoOx7X_d7dfwi3BGn-_ddOTv5yMD9mmL4rtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50619404.6030207@gentoo.org> <20120925112629.GA44376@intma.in>
	<50619711.5000102@gentoo.org>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348578605 6136 80.91.229.3 (25 Sep 2012 13:10:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:10:05 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-2011-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Sep 25 15:10:11 2012
Return-path: <musl-return-2011-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-2011-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1TGUto-0002hi-Cm
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:10:04 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 30142 invoked by uid 550); 25 Sep 2012 13:09:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 30134 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2012 13:09:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent
         :mime-version:content-type;
        bh=kWbMUbZDxOx62Ybo8ffsr308g9pFcAS22GLCs7V77q8=;
        b=hsDeClapdJS6xYN2kKxOYHF3iWAwzTCg9CrRUJplOZpejQYRKrnjtWknbEluAINjHF
         ddnK/ebrPge4n4/MoQHJOQ6LXZN5ORCmhCznDA7l66u2q9r9eapvgejeevQqhfZqrXU6
         IPIihNHdZcA5f1cx0SfOzJ7fJcxpd68zbbEdd5Rh4ozjs4DjPHHBUgtu6n0IqQ8QrYvz
         e004UHXOEOvTWJtI4jlNs2cTiZkJK9/7f6KzSOYRkAfzaVR+Cg6Bmu+XA31FfWJcnRB7
         jr7RY3P0yNUqpLXpsIwy0XunWknIHULAH/sV/ePp/i6Qvx7tMa1yEuPHCeRVYD8woZxt
         4DNg==
In-Reply-To: <50619711.5000102@gentoo.org> (Luca Barbato's message of "Tue, 25
	Sep 2012 13:35:45 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2010
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2010>

Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> writes:

> On 09/25/2012 01:26 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>
>>> Static linking could be dangerous from a security/maintainance
>>> standpoint, but that is me looking at the specific scenarios in which
>>> Gentoo shines.
>> 
>> 
>> This is a common myth.  lazy or ineffective system management is a
>> danger regardless of the linking type.
>
> Spending lots of time unbundling dependencies from packages so they
> could use the up-to-date shared version might bring you to have a bias.
>
> Any system management that force you to reinstall all your packages
> because zlib had a bug doesn't seem efficient.

Note that you need to *restart all programs using zlib* anyway.
So what's the difference between

tar xzpf base.tar.gz
and
tar xzpf zlib.tar.gz

?
-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org