No end. Was: how to make Debian less fragile

[Todd Humphries <thump@owlnet.rice.edu>]

	This thread doesn't seem to want to die.  Justin has convinced a
few people that static-linked emergency binaries could be desirable.  
Others do not see the utility.  But does it have to be one way or the
other?  I want my everyday base utilities to be statically linked for all
of the optimization reasons mentioned.  But, to me, *also* having a rescue
set of statically linked packages seems wise as well.  Why not just put
together a "statically linked rescue" package and provide it as an option
on Debian install?  This would install static versions of the base tools
somewhere out of the way, so that they are only used in times of system
brokenness.  But only if you want the redundency...

	I think all the points have been argued here.  Further, I don't
think Debian wants to move any of its tools to static linking by default.
Also, it sounds as if there is considerable opposition to installing two
sets of tools by default.  Why not provide an *option* of static tool
redundency at install?  Would this satisfy all involved?


--Todd Humphries

"A good machine dreams of the day it will be replaced by a better
machine." -- Douglas Coupland