On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:50:48AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Raphael" == Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Raphael> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Raphael> dar-static
>
> Raphael> Theodore Y. Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Raphael> e2fsck-static
>
> Both of these (and maybe others) are false positives.
Which would be caught if the test actually say, used the "file"
command for any binary that had files installed in a .../bin directory
or .../lib directory.
BTW, I recently got a complaint from someone who was still
using a 2.4 Woody system, and had been using e2fsck-static as a way of
getting the latest e2fsprogs fixups for e2fsck, given that the woody
backports effort had stopped a while ago. Apparently the latest glibc
uses thread local storage in its locale code, so even linking
statically against glibc will result in a binary that can't be used on
a 2.4 kernel. Because I was a nice guy, I hacked up e2fsck-static to
build against dietlibc instead, so it would work on ancient systems.
Dropped the size of the binary from over a megabyte to about 330k, a
savings of two-thirds....
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
