* Steve Willer said: > > You're putting too much emphasis on static bins, pure and simple. I've > > got machines that don't even have dynamic libs, and let me assure you > > that they're not failure-proof. > > I don't think it's fair to throw in some reductio ad absurdum like that, > do you? Nobody is arguing for perfection or "failure-proof" systems. The > issue is a rather simple one of costs vs. benefits. A very simple issue, > but of course the details are more complex. Exactly. If I have a chance to minimize a possibility of the need of a physical presence at the server hundreds of miles away, then I'll gladly take it. When such a remote server fails I'd have to waste at least two days to go there, not to mention gas costs etc. Funny? Not really - I waste time and money. > I had reacted in the same way (with hostility) before I thought about it > really carefully. There's definitely a benefit to having static core > binaries. For those who administer remote production machines or machines > where downtime is very bad, the benefit is frankly substantial from a risk > point of view. So what are the costs? What are they really? As far as I > can tell, there's a small disk space cost (about 200K per binary) and no > memory cost. There was some grumbling about the effort involved, but I > think that was without a full understanding of what was involved. What effort? As I said before, if there's a decision to do that - I'll gladly patch all the relevant packages to produce ADDITIONAL set of static tools. I just want some consensus to be reached, that's all. Otherwise it's just a matter of installing one, possibly more packages. regards, marek
Attachment:
pgpSjZN3rieEr.pgp
Description: PGP signature