I've begun to wonder a bit about the above subject after reading an
article in a newsgroup somewhere.
It mentioned something about problems with a dynamic linked e2fsck(and
friends) that has been installed on some distributions. Anyhow, the
bottom line was that it should be static linked so problems with libc(?)
wouldn't keep you from fixing your fs.
But as far as I can see it doesn't really matter, as if something
thrashes libc, the system will never get as far as to run fsck due to
various (init, bash, update) other commands being dynamic linked with libc.
I know it is wise to keep a disaster recovery floppy or three, but if
your system hasn't had any serious mishaps for 8 months or more, such
disks tend to be recycled for other use or just disappear.
Just wondering, wouldn't it be wise to at least let the most important
commands be static so it is possible to boot into single-user mode if you
(or anything else) does something stupid to libc?
Vebby <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>