Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] statically linked bash?
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:07:18 +0200

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 01:36:30PM -0400,
dufflebunk AT pizzaz.wite3.on.cogeco.ca wrote:
> 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
> have.

The one in devel now installs /bin/bash.static in addition to the normal
one.

> 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
> >
> > http://www.sourcemage.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Discuss mailing list
> > SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>

--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page