From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Subject: Re: The dangers of playing with shared libraries Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 13:15:48 GMT
In article <STEVEV.93Apr13211918@miser.uoregon.edu>, stevev@miser.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) writes:
| In article <dmw.734673106@teal> dmw@teal.csn.org (Dave Warner) writes:
|
| caywood@wyvern.wyvern.com (John Caywood) writes:
|
| >Any other opinions on a minimal set of statically-linked utilities?
|
| Yes. Build them yourself. Not intended to be a flame
| but all these sources are freely available, easily
| compilable, easily statically linkable, easily installable
| any way you please.
|
| Its YOUR system to do with as you see fit -- try it, you'll like it.
|
| I'm certainly going to find the GNU file utilities and make
| statically linked versions of things like cat and ln.
|
| My recommendation was that binary distributions of Linux, such as
| the SLS, ought to have a minimal set of statically linked
| utilities so that a problem with the shared libraries won't make
| the system completely unusable or unfixable. It is very
| frustrating to find that one weak link and then discover that you
| can't fix it without something like a bootable rootdisk because
| the tool you needed to fix it broke along with everything else.
Given that there are bootable rootdisks, and the SLS bootable plus a
rootdisk, I'm not sure that building a suite of oversize utilities makes
any sense when you can run from the floppy and do what you need.
Sounds like a non-problem to me, I've occasionally whacked the Linux
partition so hard it wouldn't boot, and I've always been able to fix it
from the A1/A2 SLS disks.
-- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345