Re: not for 1.1
Andrew Howell writes:
>
> Raul Miller writes:
> >
> > How much storage would it take to make everything in /bin and /sbin
> > statically linked?
> >
> > Rational: these programs are critical for using the system under
> > degraded conditions. Sometimes /lib will not be available.
>
> If you do this I'd want to see a /bin/sh that was statically linked
> bash with maybe some stuff taken out of it.
IMO we shouldn't link all these binaries statically. As Bruce pointed out
there are situation where you need a rescue disk anyway.
However, there are situations where a statical shell is useful, e.g. some
work on shared libs. I think we should package sash for thispurpose. This is
a shell supposed to be used for these jobs (many built-in commands to
replace mv, ln, ls, ...).
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Lehrstuhl fuer angewandte Mathematik insb. Informatik
RWTH-Aachen, D-52056 Aachen, Germany
email: meskes@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Reply to: