> -----Original Message----- > From: James Harper [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:31 PM > To: Phil Stracchino; Kern Sibbald > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bacula-devel] Proposal: Revise configure options > > > *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.
It's not just the disk space. In fact, I'd argue that statically linked applications take up more, not less, space. A far more important issue is the one Phil pointed out: you also need to have the exactly correct version of the runtime libraries available. When you are in a rescue situation (by definition strapped for time), you don't want to find bacula requires a different glibc than the one the rescue CD has. Having a statically linked one will all but guarantee that it will actually run when you need it how you need it, even if you booted off a different Linux version. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
