On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:18:28PM +0100, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:11:03 +0100 Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 04:27:07AM +0100, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote: > > > Yeah, static linking is not actually that static nowadays. When > > > linking, GCC warns about this. > > > > For what I know, it's only *glibc* that suffers from dynamic-only > > name resolvers (for either hosts, services, users, ...). > > You mean, if you replace glibc with some other libc, it will work? > Sure, but then you'll have more problems if you don't control the > deployment [1].
Right. uclibc static binaries work perfectly, with name resolving in the static program. That's linux-only though, I think. Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
