On 05/16/10 19:31, James Harper wrote: >> *If you don't see the compile warnings*, there is no indication that > you >> haven't built a fully working static client ... until you try to use > it >> in a bare-metal-restore situation on a minimal rescue CD. On the > system >> you built it from, with the build glibc available, it will work > perfectly. >> > > I'm curious, what is the attraction of the static client these days? It > might have been an issue when people were using 2.88MB floppy disks and > had to run with the minimum possible configuration, but any DR media > these days has plenty of space for dynamic libraries, and will have more > than enough memory that a ramdisk isn't going to run out of memory, so I > wouldn't have thought it would be such a big deal anymore.
True, there is the question of the continued need for static executables. Solaris no longer supports static linking at all; all binaries are presumed to be dynamically linked. -- Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater It's not the years, it's the mileage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
