Tushar Teredesai wrote:
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002-January/022604.html
And on Debian Sarge, e2fsck is dynamically linked.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscri
> Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > Okay, but in the event that it finds a problem, you'll still need a
> recovery
> > disk of some sort. Or, if it can't run fsck at all because fsck is
> linked to
> > a damaged .so, you'll know there is a problem anyhow and you'll STILL
> need
> > a recovery disk with a
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
Okay, but in the event that it finds a problem, you'll still need a recovery
disk of some sort. Or, if it can't run fsck at all because fsck is linked to
a damaged .so, you'll know there is a problem anyhow and you'll STILL need
a recovery disk with a different fsck binary
> Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> > Except that you typically run fsck on an unmounted disk, so a fsck
> binary
> > on the damaged partition isn't going to help you, whether it is linked
> to
> > other libraries or not.
>
> So tell me how you run fsck on your root filesystem at startup if you
> don't mou
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
Except that you typically run fsck on an unmounted disk, so a fsck binary
on the damaged partition isn't going to help you, whether it is linked to
other libraries or not.
So tell me how you run fsck on your root filesystem at startup if you
don't mount the disk at all?
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Recently when doing some ICA on e2fsprogs I noticed that /sbin/e2fsck
> > is statically linked. Is this what we want? I might need a solid
> > blow from the cluebat, but seems most of the time we make shared
> > binaries when possible. e2fsprogs builds both a shared an
On 1/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > Ah, yes, that is a good reason. Man, that cluebat stings!
>
> Don't it though? :) Eh, we've all had our share of cluebat hits. Except
> maybe Patrakov. He always seems to have all the answers. What d'ya say
> we gang
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Ah, yes, that is a good reason. Man, that cluebat stings!
Don't it though? :) Eh, we've all had our share of cluebat hits. Except
maybe Patrakov. He always seems to have all the answers. What d'ya say
we gang up and give him his share of pummeling? ;)
--
JH
--
http://l
On 1/10/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > To have the
> > shared e2fsck installed, you can add --enable-dynamic-e2fsck to the
> > configure line.
>
> Well, if the file-system is corrupted, wouldn't you want to be using as
> few files on that system as possibl
On 1/10/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comments?
>
http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002-January/022604.html
:-)
--
Tushar Teredesai
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo
Dan Nicholson wrote:
Recently when doing some ICA on e2fsprogs I noticed that /sbin/e2fsck
is statically linked. Is this what we want? I might need a solid
blow from the cluebat, but seems most of the time we make shared
binaries when possible. e2fsprogs builds both a shared and static
e2fsck,
11 matches
Mail list logo