From: Brandon S. Allbery (bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org)
Date: 04/13/93 

From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery)
Subject: Re: The dangers of playing with shared libraries
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 16:16:16 GMT

In article <C5EG47.Kqr@wyvern.wyvern.com> caywood@wyvern.wyvern.com (John Caywood) writes:
>Steve VanDevender (stevev@miser.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>: 'ln' be statically linked or that a statically linked version of
>: 'ln' be made available in the distribution so that it is possible
>
>that came with SLS 0.99pl2. 'ln' is not the only candidate for static
>linking -- I can think of ls, mv, and (maybe) cat in the same got-to-have-it

Two suggestions:

(1) The statically-linked versions should be minimal versions instead of GNU
    "cmd -[A-Za-z0-9!@#$%^&*()+[]{}" :-)

(2) A statically-linked shell has been suggested. Of the currently available
    ones, I would have to suggest rc just because it's compact... the concept
    of a statically linked "bash" makes me think of a "bashdisk" containing
    nothing *but* bash because nothing else will fit :-)

++Brandon 

-- 
Brandon S. Allbery                                       bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org

It's not too late to turn back from the "Gates" of Hell...
Linux: the FREE 32-bit operating system, available NOW. Why waaaaaait for NT?