Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > Gregory pointed out some days ago that a [statically linked] e2fsck
> > would be useful to have, to allow for recovery in case of a bad crash.
>
> We have discussed this some time ago, I think.
>
> If we have a statically linked e2fsck, we should have also a statically
> linked dpkg, or ls, or whatever.
>
> Using the rescue disk have been the standard solution for this for a
> long time.
Well I suggested it as a way to save space on the base disks and avoid the
dependencies on library packages from the essential package containing fsck.
I'm really extremely surprised to find a statically linked fsck is so large.
I assume it was stripped? I'm curious to look into why it's the case.
I would have expected fsck to use relatively few libc functions.
I guess not.
If a statically linked fsck isn't smaller than including all the libraries
then I agree it doesn't make sense to go to any extra effort to build one.
greg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: