Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
{begin random flame}
I've been watching this thread with fear and dread. I can only hope some of
the people involved do not procreate.
{end random flame}
Now that that is out of my system, I have a comment or two:
>
> > When heaps of other people are able to run Debian in a stable server
> > environment without statically linked binaries, and even recover from
> > catastrophic crashes successfully; then clearly they're not a necessity.
>
> Except that you recover by rebooting. I've argued the case that there
> is a small but significant group of people for whom rebooting is just
> not an option (for one of two reasons: logistics, or critical server).
>
> I have suggested that many of those people may not realize that they
> need static binaries, even though their need for them is enormous. This
> is owing to lack of experience either with Debian or with Unix.
If a server is unaccessible or it is unacceptable for it to have downtime,
then the people who have set the requirements for the server better be
running clustered servers with automatic failover. Even so, this would only
minimize the possibility of downtime, not eliminate it. In such an
environment the admin had better be testing *every* change on a
non-production system and validating the updates before even considering
updating such a critical machine. If the admin isn't doing this, her/she
deserves the lashing from discontented users, managers and customers.
Notice statics are not relevant in this case - they may reduce downtime due
to unforeseen events, and while helpful, they are certainly not *required*.
>
> The rest of the population wouldn't notice a difference whether they
> had them or not.
>
Exactly. If proper change control processes are in place, the system is far
more likely to be damaged by a hardware failure than anything else. Statics
won't do a thing either way when the drive is *dead*.
> So we have a situation where the lack of statics is devestating to
> a significant number of people (not a majority), and the precense
> of statics has virtually no impact on anyone else.
If that were so, why are the significant numbers not voicing their distress?
While silence is not an indication that there is not a problem, it also does
not support the position that there is a problem (unless all the systems are
broken - and they are unable to mail the list).
I could go on, but it would only restate what has already been said. My
advice - put a test system up with statics and a second with dynamics and
beat the daylights out of them. Then decide *for yourself* what *you*
prefer for your needs. Someone posted an ITP for static utils. Once the
package is built (it had better be priority optional until it is proven to
be reliable and as bug free as possible, once it is in general use the issue
of making it standard/required can be addressed) people will be free to
install it if they choose.
In parting - quit beating the dear horse. Neither side has been able to
budge the other, so let the current Debian policy dictate what is required
to be installed and kill this thread!!!
Pat
Reply to: