Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11379
| From | Linda Walsh <bash@tlinx.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? |
| Date | 2015-08-18 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8568.1439930110.904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <55D106B2.9000705@tlinx.org> <20150817044932.GB1584@vapier> |
Mike Frysinger wrote: > it is not political, nor is it related to bash at all > -mike Then can you give any technical reason why a static lib that uses no network services (i.e. running on a mini-root ) couldn't be made available for the various calls that currently claim "dynamic library support" is necessary. I know it is not just 'bash'. Googling for the subject shows it's a problem for many projects, so I find it very odd that such a static lib couldn't be provided. If an upstream DB provider (NSS, say), refuses to provide a static lib, then the static lib Gnu provided would exclude them, stating the reason why. Seems simple enough to provide such a widely asked for feature -- even if it has to be less functional/flexible than the dynamic version (i.e. Gnu would have done the best they could under the circumstances). But the bash option for static even lists the reason for such -- but with no way to actually use the option. *sigh*.
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? Linda Walsh <bash@tlinx.org> - 2015-08-18 13:34 -0700
csiph-web