Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)
I'm talking about the i386 FreeBSD ls, that's my reference point for
saying statics don't really cost that much, since BSD has all of /bin
static and it doesn't really cost anything. But as many people have
pointed out, glibc seems to produce larger binareis, and the BSD utilities
are a lot less featurefull than the GNU versions--so the GNU/linux
versions will be larger.
Justin
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 09:42:56AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 03:29:11AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> >
> > I was talking about how much bigger it would get just on the basis of
> > being GNU, rather than being something less featurefull. Obviously it
> > will be a lot bigger than the dynamic version.
> >
> > BSD's ls is 173944, statically linked. Linux's, from your list, is 314760.
>
> Is the BSD ls you mention an Alpha executable or an intel one, i don't know
> about Alpha, but ppc executable are somewhat larger than i386 ones.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven LUTHER
> > How much of that extra 140816 bytes are owing to glibc, and how many are
> > owing to GNUisms--that's the questions. The glibc extra can be eliminated
> > by linking ls against libc5; the GNUisms can't reasonably be removed in
> > a GNU OS (though we should all note that this is an example of a downside
> > to GNUs excessive creeping featurism).
> >
> > At anyrate, a 173944 byte ls has never caused any problems on BSD, and
> > it's the only ls available; given that the static ls wouldn't be
> > used very often (if it were in /sbin say), how much trouble can it be?
> >
> > An ls isn't really needed since sash provides "-ls" (though I would
> > like it if the package manager didn't depend on anything dynamic, and
> > it might want to run scripts that call ls).
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 11:41:22PM +0200, David Frey wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 02:46:44AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> > > >You're right. I didn't just forget to mention that, I completely
> > > >forgot about it.
> > > >
> > > >How much bigger is this going to make them? 10-20%? I still think
> > > >on a server it is a trivial amount of space, but it might matter
> > > >on a desktop system.
> > >
> > > (david@eos) ~$ls -al /bin/ls ~ftp/bin/ls
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 42680 Dec 15 1998 /bin/ls*
> > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 315760 May 21 01:02 /var/local/ftp/bin/ls*
> > > (david@eos) ~$file /bin/ls ~ftp/bin/ls
> > > /bin/ls: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, Alpha (unofficial), version 1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> > > /var/local/ftp/bin/ls: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, Alpha (unofficial), version 1, statically linked, stripped
> > >
> > > Slightly more.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
Reply to: