Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?
Gregory S. Stark writes:
> 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.
Yes, it is.
> I would have expected fsck to use relatively few libc functions.
> I guess not.
Note that this is the size for e2fsck, not fsck.
> 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.
It'd be extra effort, both static and dynamic e2fsck are build by
default.
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@a2points.com> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <dirson@univ-mlv.fr> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: