On Monday, September 19, 2011 18:25:36 Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:05:39 -0400 as excerpted:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:11:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > > > by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries
> >> > > > since upstream doesn't even support static linking
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm probably ignorant so you'd have to elaborate more on that to
> >> > > make me see a problem there.
> >> >
> >> > think about it a little bit. your system is using static binaries
> >> > right now, and considering you like to push systemd + initramfs so
> >> > much, i would have thought you'd realize the implications more
> >> > quickly.
> >> Hm, I seem to fail to notice other static binaries than busybox. And I
> >> don't think I use any specific configuration which makes me need static
> >> binaries;
> > by default, tools that are needed to easily recover a system
> > (busybox/cryptsetup/lvm/etc...) are IUSE=+static, and every binary that
> > goes into initramfs is statically linked.
> By default? That's begging the question (logic sense) and consequently
> does not properly support your blanket "your system is using static
> binaries right now" statement.
busybox always produces static binaries since it's the rescue shell. the rest
are just by default. glibc itself installs static binaries (ldconfig much?).
so i'm comfortable with my previous statement.
> So what sort of static binaries am I running (other than the pre-packaged
> grub-static as already mentioned), and are they really necessarily so?
it depends on the configuration. yours would seem to not need it. but there
are many which include it.
> FWIW, no busybox here. It wouldn't build when I installed back in 2004,
> so I package.provided it for later. I tried it again a couple times but
> by then it was quite clear that it really was NOT needed, so eventually I
> decided I had better things to do than tilt at that windmill. (I use a
> second root image, updated AND TESTED when the system appears to be
> working well, as my emergency recovery solution, thus don't need busybox.)
that's fine. Gentoo has always included a static rescue shell as part of its
system and i don't see a need to change that now. but if you have something
that works better for you, then all the more power to you. that's the reason
we have these knobs like package.provided.