Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Linda Walsh <bash@tlinx.org>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:54:58 -0700
Lines: 31
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.8444.1439762110.904.bug-bash@gnu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1439762110 22364 208.118.235.17 (16 Aug 2015 21:55:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu
To: bug-bash <bug-bash@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic]
X-Received-From: 173.164.175.65
X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell <bug-bash.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-bash@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:11357


bash-4.3/lib/readline/complete.c:2193: warning: Using 'getpwent' in 
statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries 
from the glibc version used for linking

Other syms: getpwnam, setpwent, endpwent.

Is providing a static lib that reads the local machine's /etc/passwd
file really beyond the capabilities of the glibc people?

The configure comment says one would build bash static for 'miniroot
operations by 'root' (formatting other partitions, restoring, etc...).

I don't really see why dynamic libs are needed at a time that no other
file systems may be mounted -- operating in like "run level 1 (single user).

This has a political feel to it (only because I can't imagine any techncial
reason to not provide it).  Does anyone else ever try a static link
on bash?

My 'bash' is 'bigger than most distro bashes (1.2M), but everything but
the libc stuff is builtin (all the builtins & help files -- given that's
all in there, 1.2M doesn't seem that large these days
 
>  ldd /bin/bash
  linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd09d86000)
  libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003001400000)
  libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003000c00000)
  libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0000003004000000)
  /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00005612dbf11000)