sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: "M.L." <mlubrano AT sourcemage.org>
- To: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:27:39 +0100
On Vendredi 29 Novembre 2002 08:16, Dufflebunk wrote:
> We are always happy to accept patches :)
I'll try something like that if I have some time ;)
> I imagine that simple program doesn't need all of those libs... won't
> -strip or something take them off?
>
5.2k Nov 29 07:39 a.dynamic
466k Nov 29 07:39 a.static
376k Nov 29 08:26 a.static-strip
> On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 01:46, M.L. wrote:
> > Hi Duff,
> >
> > as far as I remember, static binaries only grows because of fuctions and
> > parts of libs they are linked to.
> >
> > For instance, "hello world" goes from 5.2k to 466k here (try gcc -static
> > ;)
> >
> > Anyway, I'd love to see "STATIC COMPILE" or a checkbox like that in
> > sorcery features menu :)
> >
> > Bye,
> > Mat.
> >
> > On Vendredi 29 Novembre 2002 04:41, 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).
> > >
> > > Others which are also needed, but are less important:
> > > xdelta, cvs, dialog.
> > >
> > > And since I'm procrastinating on fixing bugs, here's a bit of output
> > > that lists the spells that would need to be modified to make the static
> > > binaries, and the short script to find the spell:
> > > L='ls cut awk sed grep find tar gzip bzip2 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' ; for BIN in $L ;
> > > do gaze from `which $BIN` | cut -d: -f1 ; done | sort | uniq
> > > bash-2.05b
> > > file-3.39
> > > fileutils-4.1
> > > findutils-4.1
> > > gawk-3.1.1
> > > grep-2.5
> > > gzip-1.2.4b
> > > lockexec-0.3.1
> > > sed-4.0.3
> > > sh-utils-2.0
> > > tar-1.13
> > > tar-1.13.25
> > > textutils-2.1
> > > util-linux-2.11w
> > > wget-1.8.2
> > >
> > > Don't ask me why it's got two versions of tar listed.
--
//
// M.L. Grimoire Guru (mail & news)
// SourceMage GNU/Linux http://www.sourcemage.org
// ICQ #23832402 Linux User #36502
//
-
[SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/28/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, M.L., 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Julian v. Bock, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Andrew, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Dufflebunk, 11/29/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 11/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.