You assert this but can you justify it? I assert the opposite.
> i recall working wonders with 'ln' and 'mv' on a sunos box with corrupted
> libraries. looking at a sunos 4.1.3 box i see that init=/bin/sh would
> have worked (wow! cuz /bin/sh is staticly linked as it should be). and a
> handful of useful things in /bin and /etc are static (such as mount,
> ifconfig, update, fsck, hostname, ldd, tar, sh, mv, ln). you can do lots
> with these.
>
> on my redhat system a brief look at /bin and /sbin reveals only a couple
> static bins namely "ldconfig" and the e2fs tools (which are only static
> cuz the author knows they should be). this situation should be improved.
Funny you mention that. Every time a new version of the ext2fs progs
comes available, I have to edit the Makefiles to compile/link
everything dynamically. It's a great pity that this isn't a
configuration option (yes, I know there is a similar option, but it
still leaves e2fsck static:-().
> the little bit of extra disk space used by staticly linking a few bins is
> cheap.
>
> you'll all think i'm crazy until the day it would have saved you some
> precious minutes of downtime. take action! write your local governments
> or at least the author of your favorite distribution!
Not crazy: I just don't agree. I thought about the "benefit" of a few
precious statically linked binaries, and decided it was just a
mirage. If my root filesystem gets corrupted, I have no reason to
expect that /lib/libc.so.?.?.? will get hit rather than /sbin/init or
/bin/bash
Instead I put my efforts into making a useful boot/root pair of
floppies that I can use for installation/upgrade/recovery. And of
course, floppies being capacity-impaired, you have to be very careful
about what you put on them. Hence the need for dynamic everything.
I also don't want to build one set of binaries for my "real" systems
and another for my floppies. And I want the *same* floppies for
installation/upgrade as for recovery.
Regards,
Richard....