Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11357
| From | Linda Walsh <bash@tlinx.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? |
| Date | 2015-08-16 14:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8444.1439762110.904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
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)
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? Linda Walsh <bash@tlinx.org> - 2015-08-16 14:54 -0700
csiph-web