Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?

[Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>]

> > If we have a statically linked e2fsck, we should have also a statically
> > linked dpkg, or ls, or whatever.

Not necessarily.  Fsck needs to be as robust as possible when it comes to
a corrupted file system as does everything that gets run before that point
(/bin/sh, init, etc.)

Once fsck has run, it may have fixed things such that libraries previously
unavailable can now be seen by dpkg, ls, or whatever.

The times where a disk is corrupted to the point that libraries unavailable
to start are fine after the check may be so rare that this is not worth
doing.  I don't really know.


> > 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 don't see why we couldn't keep it dynamically linked on the base disks
to save space but have the debian package contain a statically linked version.
At the next upgrade, the "safer" statically linked version would get
installed.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Premature optimization is the root of all evil.  -- Donald Knuth



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org