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

[Rex Walters <rex@example.com>]

>>>>> Scott Stone writes:  (on 04 Nov 98)

> This seems to be a subjective opinion, one that doesn't seem to be
> followed by most Linux distributions, at least.  Wouldn't this lead to
> some excessive bloat?

I'd have sworn one of the versions of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
(http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) talked about statically linked binaries,
but the 2.0 version only mentions statically linked ln and sync in /sbin
(and then only for linux specifically).

Without going through all the old FSSTND stuff, does anyone know
if/when/why the recommendations changed?

*Everything* in /sbin and /bin seems way overkill, but I'd certainly want
at least a statically linked fsck laying around somewhere.  Rescue disks
are handy, but sheesh.

Ever had to get creative when a bourne shell was your only access to the
filesystem ("echo *" for "ls", read loops for cat, etc.)?  *Somewhere*
years ago (urban legends? admin abuse? kibology?) I read an amazing
(hysterical) description of an admin saving a system that was gradually
losing filesystems piecemeal using only a bourne shell and a statically
linked c compiler he managed to copy from someplace before it went
south.

Regards,
-- 
Rex
----------------------------------------------------------------
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