Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

as simple as yours. Justin On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 02:18:47PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think you'd be surprised to learn how little RAM we're talking > > about here. > > I think you'd be sur

Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

ash has a long history as a /bin/sh shell, since all the *BSD unixes use it as /bin/sh. I am not concerned with full POSIX complience for /bin/sh, providing I get everything I would normally expect a Bourne shell to have. And ash does you that. Obviously I think it should be static as well.

Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

I think you'd be surprised to learn how little RAM we're talking about here. Especially if the statics used old libc rather than glibc (sh, ls and dd certainly don't need to be multi-threaded, and don't require any advanced support from the C library). First, none of the system install, upgrade

Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

this as a counter-argument. Justin On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Carl R. Witty wrote: > Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > HOW TO MAKE DEBIAN LESS FRAGILE: > > > > All the core system tools, including the package manager (apt_get >

core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

(This discussion was originally in the devel list, I am restating my views here because it is actually a policy issue.) HOW TO MAKE DEBIAN LESS FRAGILE: All the core system tools, including the package manager (apt_get and dpkg) should be available as static binaries rather than dynamic execu