On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:43:58PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:58 am, Ceri Davies wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:29:27AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > > The other concern is does this force the entire crunch to require a > > > working rtld now? If so, that would mean that this wouldn't be > > > appropriate for something such as /rescue. If there were a way to > > > statically link rtld into the crunch itself that would probably be ideal, > > > but I'm not sure that is possible. > > > > No, just the dynamic bits require rtld. > > So you can still run /foo without rtld being present if foo doesn't need > dlopen, etc.? It looks like you link the crunch with -o dynamic, so isn't > the kernel going to complain when you try to exec it that it can't find rtld > if rtld is missing? (Think about /rescue if your rtld is hosed and/or > missing.)
Sorry, you're correct of course. It's still useful in Adrian's environment at least (because he puts rtld on an MFS). Ceri -- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein (attrib.)
pgpru3o6Qts6M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
