[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?



[You (Philippe Troin)]
>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...

No no no, not a full system, just a few things for single-user mode.

>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...

mknod and ln have saved my buttg a few times.  Once I had to use a 
statically linked xemacs (no joke) to fix a system hosed by an ld.so 
upgrade.

However, I agree, we've talked about this, and most people agree staticly 
linked binaries should not be shipped baseline, that's what the rescue 
disk is for, yadda, yadda.  I agree with this.

On the other hand, say I was in a fit or paranoia, couldn't I create a 
package which has static versions of essential programs that I saw fit, 
and couldn't I package it up and either use diversions on these binaries, 
or perhaps give them names like ln.static ?  Would that be a *bad* thing?
(Not that I have actual plans to do this at this time.)

.....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: