On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 06:04:49PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
[compacted libc problem]
> Yep, I've thought on it some before. There are two approaches I've come
> up with:
>
> 1) Basically, define a policy that thou shalt use only these libc
> functions in an installer module. Anyone who needs a new function has
> to get it into the policy.
That would be very error prone. Something along this line would be to
compile a libc with everything optional switched off (I think this can be
done with glibc, right?) and make that available saying "it has to work
with this stripped libc".
> 2) Make sure all the installer modules are in a well-defined place in
> the debian archive, and download them all and analyize them all for
> library reduction. Each time a new version of a module is uploaded,
> we may need to update the libc to make sure it supports the symbols
> in it.
That would be better I think.
> The problem with 2 is it requires more work, and third parties who make
> installer modules have to consult some list still, except the list may
> change without warning..
For 2 I would expect third parties to make their own boot floppies.
> Including the libc with the modules doesn't seem any better than just
> statically linking the modules. Which I guess a third party could do in
> some situations in any case.
If the module comes on CD I see no problem with including the libc.
cu
Torsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
