On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Michael Hertling <mhertl...@online.de> wrote: >> Static linking of glibc is not really supported; IIRC glibc's >> DNS and localization support use shared libraries under >> the hood, even when you ask for static linking > >[statically linked utilities are essential for disaster recovery and during >boot]
During boot, I think it's common practice to link against klibc, which totally supports static linking. And I agree, a statically linked busybox is a wonderful thing. > So, what do you mean when saying static linking > against glibc is not really supported? Do you refer to particular > systems or special setups? Could you provide an example? No special system or setup. See http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3430400/linux-static-linking-is-dead http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=631 http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1044 glibc decided many years ago to focus only on systems that supported dynamic linking, and to require its use. Not a popular decision, but the glibc maintainer has some rather strong opinions. - Dan -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
