Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11391
| From | Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? |
| Date | 2015-08-18 23:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8607.1439954344.904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <55D106B2.9000705@tlinx.org> <20150817044932.GB1584@vapier> <55D396EF.8030102@tlinx.org> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On 18 Aug 2015 13:34, Linda Walsh wrote: > 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. (1) http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html (2) it's using the nss system which lets people drop modules into the system at anytime and change the overall lookups to use that. statically linking a specific subset would block that ability. which means people using providers like ldap would be stuck with static binaries that don't work. https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Name-Service-Switch.html i'm not going to debate the relevance of such a system nowadays as i don't care. purely pointing out that it's not a "political" issue (nor have you provided any references to back up your specious claim). > 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). it's already been provided. build glibc w/--enable-static-nss. -mike
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...? Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> - 2015-08-18 23:18 -0400
csiph-web