Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?
[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]
> On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Brian White wrote:
> > Once fsck has run, it may have fixed things such that libraries previously
> > unavailable can now be seen by dpkg, ls, or whatever.
>
> Yes, but considering that the size of the statically linked fsck is more
> or less the size of the dynamically linked plus the size of the
> dynamic libraries, the probability of having a static fsck messed up is
> more or less the same as having a dynamic fsck or any of the libraries
> it depends on also messed up.
>
> I don't see a real saving here.
>
> If the fsck proper is messed up, you will need a boot disk anyway.
Well, linking isn't just a question of the shared library and the
executable. Sometimes ld.so gets messed. What about /etc/ld.so.* ?
I'm not sure about libc6 and the newer ld.so, but it used to be that
if you stomped /dev/zero by accident shared linking ceased working
too.
I for one am a proponent of having e2fsck, mknod, and ln be statically
linking, or at least available in an alternatives package static.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: