Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
  • Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 07:39:48 +0100

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:41:33PM -0500, Dufflebunk wrote:
> There has been a small amount of discussion about making the binaries
> that the sorcery scripts depend on static. This would solve problems
> when upgrading (glibc ('lockexec not found' anyone?), gettext, ...). I
> don't know how big the binaries get, but I'll list as many of the
> programs I can think of. Does anyone have any idea of how much more
> space having them all staticly compiled would take? Are there any other
> cons to doing this?
>
> ls, cut, awk, sed, grep, find, tar, gzip, bzip, lockexec, cat, ps, true,
> false, md5sum, rm, mv, file, sort, date, mkdir, rmdir, tail, nice,
> sleep, echo, column, basename, dirname, chmod, touch, wget, mount,
> umount, bash (may have its own versions of these programs, but I'm not
> sure: sleep, nice, echo, mkdir, nice, rm, mv, touch).

I think many of these could be provided by busybox
(http://www.busybox.net). Actually, if i skim over the list and the one
at http://www.busybox.net/downloads/BusyBox.html, the only ones that
seem to be missing are lockexec, bzip2, awk and bash.

If we don't go with busybox, size still shouldn't be too much of a
problem if we strip the binaries.

--
Arwed
aka alley_cat




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page