Re: tlug: Re: static binaries (was: Re: tomsrtbt & glibc)

[Scott Stone <sstone@example.com>]

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> >>>>> "Rex" == Rex Walters <rex@example.com> writes:
> 
>     Rex> Forgive me my hyperbole.  I meant overkill in the sense that
>     Rex> for many of the executables in /sbin it simply doesn't matter
>     Rex> whether or not they are statically linked.
> 
> Which ones?  If having /lib/libc.so disappear doesn't bother you with
> respect to a given dynamically linked executable, then how is it
> necessary?  Shouldn't it go to /usr/sbin?

libc.so isn't necessary unless you're compiling.  libc.so.[456] is.  If
you are using libc5 or prior, you DO need /lib/ld.so to run binaries,
however.  glibc doesn't seem to need it.

> 
>     Rex> I wasn't referring to bloat (on disk or in memory).  FHS 2.0
>     Rex> says /sbin is for executables only run by an admin and not
>     Rex> normal users.  I can probably live without mkfs.msdos being
>     Rex> statically linked.
> 
> A prime candidate for moving to /usr/sbin IMHO.
> 

/usr/sbin contains sysadmin-only stuff too, does it not?
(at least theoretically?)

BTW, which /bin and /sbin binaries come statically linked with Debian 2.0?


--------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Stone <sstone@example.com, sstone@example.com>
Head of TurboLinux Development/Systems Administrator
Pacific HiTech, Inc (USA) / Pacific HiTech, KK (Japan)


----------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30   Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Technical Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 HSBC Securities Office
----------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://tlug.linux.or.jp Sponsors: PHT, HSBC Securities