Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

[Justin Wells <jread@semiotek.com>]

Well Chris you obviously only run desktop systems, and never run 
anything from remote. You're one of those people who believe that 
having a boot disk solves all reliability problems, and I guess you
have just never been in a situation where that isn't an option.

I wish my life were as simple as yours.

Justin

On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 02:18:47PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Justin Wells <jread@semiotek.com> writes:
> 
> > I think you'd be surprised to learn how little RAM we're talking
> > about here.
> 
> I think you'd be surprised at how little RAM I and many other people
> have.  Especially on some of my systems.  My 486 to-be-router has
> trouble with the *existing* system, *not* running X.
> 
> > Especially if the statics used old libc rather than 
> > glibc 
> 
> A logistical nightmare.  The maintainer is forced to keep statically
> linkable copies of the old libc, along with headers and all.  And to
> ensure that any incompatibilities between the older libc and new are
> resolved.  Are you volunteering to create these packages?  If so, then
> I'd certainly be willing to see them as an *option* for the paranoid.
> But I have no interest in building, installing or using them.
> 
> > If you actually analyze it, we're talking about very small 
> > amounts of memory here, in excange for a large increase in 
> > the reliability of the system. 
> 
> My system has been running quite reliably for nearly three years now.
> I don't need *any* increase in reliability, let alone a large one.
> At which point, I'm looking purely at the costs.  And I find the costs
> unacceptable, since *I* get *no* measurable benefit whatsoever.
> 
> > But if finally you still somehow insist that you cannot afford 
> > the extra 300k of RAM that static linking would cost you, then 
> > yes they could be put in /sbin or somewhere like /stand instead,
> > and you could ignore them most of the time... until your system
> > failed.
> 
> I would ignore them entirely.  In fact, I see no reason to install
> them at all.  I *have* a boot floppy for emergencies, and I've never
> had a need for even that in the nearly three years I've been running
> Debian.
> 
> Like I say, if you want to make *optional* packages for the paranoid,
> then I have no objections.  If you want to make this standard, then I
> strongly object.
> -- 
> Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
>       or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
> http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>