Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:01:22 EST "Adam P. Harris" (apharris@onshore.co
m) wrote:
> I for one am a proponent of having e2fsck, mknod, and ln be statically
> linking, or at least available in an alternatives package static.
And bash (to start mknod and ln), and init (to get to the point e2fsck
gets fired up), and a bunch of other utilities to have the boot scripts
run... and... and...
I thought the consensus was that statically linked executables was a
no-no because you need a bunch of basic programs statically linked.
And also to have all these packages recompiled whenever a libc security
patch is updated.
If my shared libraries and/or ld.so were screwed up, I would only
trust a boot disk to fix the damage anyways...
Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: