On Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35:09 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:11:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > by that token, i'll go ahead and remove glibc's static libraries > > > > since upstream doesn't even support static linking > > > > > > I'm probably ignorant so you'd have to elaborate more on that to > > > make me see a problem there. > > > > think about it a little bit. your system is using static binaries > > right now, and considering you like to push systemd + initramfs so > > much, i would have thought you'd realize the implications more > > quickly. > > Hm, I seem to fail to notice other static binaries than busybox. And I > don't think I use any specific configuration which makes me need static > binaries;
by default, tools that are needed to easily recover a system (busybox/cryptsetup/lvm/etc...) are IUSE=+static, and every binary that goes into initramfs is statically linked. > I'm following the _original_ *nix idea of keeping it simple. you're confusing the notion of tradeoffs. the amount of tooling that shared libraries take to work at all let alone being stable is significantly higher than a single static binary. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
