On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:33, Cristian Rodríguez
El 01/04/13 19:29, Linda Walsh escribió:
Show me a reliable source. Not some ranting page.
That's a reliable source, that page was written by Ulrich Drepper, that is the guy who wrote most of actual glibc code.
I know Ulrich since around 1997. He can rant, and he has done so. To be fair, that page was originally written when there was a fad of statically linking nearly ever thing. For a up and running system, with out the "super SUSE special" add-ins, he is still right. Recovery tools are an whole other beast. Every system should have ONE fully static shell for this case. Busybox can be linked fully statically against some other libc (non-gnu), as it will be just one binary file, the hype should not be about a non-gnu libc, but about a fully functionally static standalone shell for recovery. Back to the original point: keeping non-static sash(-static) makes no sense, a replacement is needed. - Yamaban.