Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?

sm-discuss AT

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: dufflebunk AT
  • To: sm-discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:36:30 -0400

I don't recall our bash ever being staticly linked. It is possible to
build bash without the readline problem, it's been optional for a while
now. That said, a static bash as a fallback would be a good thing to

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 02:07:25PM +0200, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page