[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Static linking considered harmful

Jakub Jelinek wrote:

Removing libc.a would be most effective, but I'm afraid we still need
a handful of statically linked binaries for boot time initialization and
system recovery utilities.

So, I think it would be best if we could analyze what in FC7/FE7
is linked statically,

Just FYI, what was linked statically in FC5 (as an example ;) ):

Package		File

cryptsetup-luks /sbin/cryptsetup
device-mapper   /sbin/dmsetup.static
dmraid          /sbin/dmraid.static
dump            /sbin/dump
dump            /sbin/restore
e2fsprogs       /sbin/e2fsck
e2fsprogs       /sbin/fsck.ext2
e2fsprogs       /sbin/fsck.ext3
glibc           /sbin/ldconfig
glibc           /sbin/sln
libgcc          /usr/sbin/libgcc_post_upgrade
lvm2            /sbin/lvm.static
mkinitrd        /sbin/nash
module-init-tools       /sbin/insmod.static
rmt             /sbin/rmt
udev            /sbin/udevd.static


I am sure that at least "libc.a/libm.a" must be saved. Certainly as a separate package (say "glibc-static"), not installed by default.

If some (advanced) user want to link something statically for some reason, let's give him a chance to do this easier. "Easier" means that he does not need to re-compile all the stuff he need. Just some libraries, but not the whole libc.

And if I teach programming, I want to show students that their "Hello, World!" program can be linked statically, and what it differs to dynamic linkage. For this, I want the libc.a to be present... ;)

Dmitry Butskoy

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]