sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:07:25 +0200
Hi,
I just updated readline and bash in the devel grimoire and while doing
this totally broke my readline install which left me with no working
shell on my system. Luckily i managed to recover from that using a
static busybox i got from a rpm on the web, but it made me wonder why we
don't install a static bash binary in addition to the dynamic one
anymore. I know we used to do that, and I think it's a nice fallback for
such problems. Does anyone remember why we removed that from the bash
spell?
--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org
-
[SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Arwed von Merkatz, 07/29/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?, Eric Sandall, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
dufflebunk, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Arwed von Merkatz, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Jackson Alley, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Damien Mascord, 07/29/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?, Andrew, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Damien Mascord, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Jackson Alley, 07/29/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?,
Arwed von Merkatz, 07/29/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.