From: probreak@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Michael Chacon) Subject: Re: The dangers of playing with shared libraries Date: 14 Apr 1993 20:31:02 -0500
keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) writes:
>In article <C5EG47.Kqr@wyvern.wyvern.com> caywood@wyvern.wyvern.com (John Caywood) writes:
>>Steve VanDevender (stevev@miser.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>>
>> [ stuff deleted ]
>>
>>: in to fix the problem, I would like to _strongly_ suggest that
>>: 'ln' be statically linked or that a statically linked version of
>>: 'ln' be made available in the distribution so that it is possible
>>: to recover from this mistake the obvious way.
>>
>>I second the motion. I got bit installing gcc486 instead of the gcc386
>>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
>>category. I can't see it if I can't 'ls'; if I can 'mv' it, I don't need
>Sure you can "see" it :
># echo *
>Will happily list all the files in your cwd.
>Bare minimum is your shell, 'cat' and 'mv' IMHO. 'ln' would be nice,
>but not absolutely neccessary, You can always make a COPY temporarily,
>and then link back correctly later.
Actually, since the shell can simulate cat with:
while read x; do echo "$x"; done < file
You can cp with this, so that should be all you need. Just a bash process,
and I am set.
James