Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
(Note that in the following "you" refers to
pro-statically-linked-shell-tools people in general, not Justin in
On 23-Aug-99, 19:52 (CDT), Justin Wells <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Craig, as your post consists entirely of flames and opinions, with
> nothing of any technical merit, I really can't find anything in it
> that is worth responding to, other than this:
No, Craig continues to point out that statements like "Such-and-so is
required to use Debian as a stable server system" are opinions, not
technical arguments, without technical merit. Not only that, they are
opinions that many of us do not agree with based on our experience with
*using* Debian as a stable production server. Neither Craig nor anyone
else that I've noticed has objected to you making optional packages to
do whatever you want. I think it's the attitude of "we know what's good
for you, and any objection is crap" that is making Craig crazy; it's
certainly begun to annoy me. It's particularly annoying when someone
posts "Don't worry, it'll work for everybody 'cause I tried it on my
system and it was ok". (Again, this is *signficantly* different than
saying "I analyzed the effect of this change on these programs, and here
is my testing method, and here are the results, so I think it's ok.")
The only benefit you've shown for static binaries is for use on remotely
administered systems, where the admin has neither physical access nor
the someone on site to follow simple instructions like "put the CD
labeled 'Emergency use only' in the tray and hit Ctrl-Alt-Del.", and for
those situations where /lib is damaged but /bin isn't. I certainly don't
deny those cases exist, but I strongly doubt they are even a significant
minority of Debian's user base. Yes, we should accomodate those needs,
but I see little reason to inflict it on everybody.
> I do have Debian running on lots of systems, but not on any servers. It
> has not yet (and neither have the other Linux's) given me the confidence
> in practice to want to make it a server. I am trying to address that by
> discussion my issues on this list.
Opinion, opinion, opinion.
> Kindly stop with the flames; I'm eager to hear your technically
> meritous arguments, and will henceforce ignore your unsubstantiated
> opinins and flames. I fear this may be my last post to you.
Ditto. So long as you continue to ignore the core "techinically
meritous" argument, the rest of us are reduced to trying to shout loud
enough to gain your attention.
In case you missed it, here it is again: Cautious sysadmins don't screw
with working systems unless there is potential benefit to outweigh the
risk. I agree that your proposal is not that risky. However, I and
presumably others see even smaller benefit. Therefore, we object to
making the sash installation required.
You, on the other hand, are now saying that you don't want your proposed
"solution" to be required either. That was *not* clear from many
previous posts. In which case, I don't know what we're arguing about.