| 1 |
On Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35:09 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:11:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > > by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries |
| 4 |
> > > > since upstream doesn't even support static linking |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I'm probably ignorant so you'd have to elaborate more on that to |
| 7 |
> > > make me see a problem there. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > think about it a little bit. your system is using static binaries |
| 10 |
> > right now, and considering you like to push systemd + initramfs so |
| 11 |
> > much, i would have thought you'd realize the implications more |
| 12 |
> > quickly. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Hm, I seem to fail to notice other static binaries than busybox. And I |
| 15 |
> don't think I use any specific configuration which makes me need static |
| 16 |
> binaries; |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
by default, tools that are needed to easily recover a system |
| 19 |
(busybox/cryptsetup/lvm/etc...) are IUSE=+static, and every binary that goes |
| 20 |
into initramfs is statically linked. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I'm following the _original_ *nix idea of keeping it simple. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
you're confusing the notion of tradeoffs. the amount of tooling that shared |
| 25 |
libraries take to work at all let alone being stable is significantly higher |
| 26 |
than a single static binary. |
| 27 |
-mike |
Archives