| 1 |
On Monday, September 19, 2011 18:25:36 Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger posted on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:05:39 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> > On Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35:09 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:11:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > > > by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries |
| 6 |
> >> > > > since upstream doesn't even support static linking |
| 7 |
> >> > > |
| 8 |
> >> > > I'm probably ignorant so you'd have to elaborate more on that to |
| 9 |
> >> > > make me see a problem there. |
| 10 |
> >> > |
| 11 |
> >> > think about it a little bit. your system is using static binaries |
| 12 |
> >> > right now, and considering you like to push systemd + initramfs so |
| 13 |
> >> > much, i would have thought you'd realize the implications more |
| 14 |
> >> > quickly. |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> Hm, I seem to fail to notice other static binaries than busybox. And I |
| 17 |
> >> don't think I use any specific configuration which makes me need static |
| 18 |
> >> binaries; |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > by default, tools that are needed to easily recover a system |
| 21 |
> > (busybox/cryptsetup/lvm/etc...) are IUSE=+static, and every binary that |
| 22 |
> > goes into initramfs is statically linked. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> By default? That's begging the question (logic sense) and consequently |
| 25 |
> does not properly support your blanket "your system is using static |
| 26 |
> binaries right now" statement. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
busybox always produces static binaries since it's the rescue shell. the rest |
| 29 |
are just by default. glibc itself installs static binaries (ldconfig much?). |
| 30 |
so i'm comfortable with my previous statement. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> So what sort of static binaries am I running (other than the pre-packaged |
| 33 |
> grub-static as already mentioned), and are they really necessarily so? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
it depends on the configuration. yours would seem to not need it. but there |
| 36 |
are many which include it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> FWIW, no busybox here. It wouldn't build when I installed back in 2004, |
| 39 |
> so I package.provided it for later. I tried it again a couple times but |
| 40 |
> by then it was quite clear that it really was NOT needed, so eventually I |
| 41 |
> decided I had better things to do than tilt at that windmill. (I use a |
| 42 |
> second root image, updated AND TESTED when the system appears to be |
| 43 |
> working well, as my emergency recovery solution, thus don't need busybox.) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
that's fine. Gentoo has always included a static rescue shell as part of its |
| 46 |
system and i don't see a need to change that now. but if you have something |
| 47 |
that works better for you, then all the more power to you. that's the reason |
| 48 |
we have these knobs like package.provided. |
| 49 |
-mike |
Archives