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: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • To: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • Cc: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>, sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Static base spells
  • Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:08:46 -0500

In normal life, after you recompile glibc or whatever, you'd want your existing tools to take advantage of it, without recompiling much. If they're static, this doesn't happen. Shared libraries are also as much about modular software as they're about memory saving. If a bug is fixed in glibc heap or somewhere else, you'd want to take advantage of it transparently.
Personally, I refuse to use static binaries all the time just because the edge case of sorcery falling apart may come.

Sergey.

Dufflebunk wrote:

What would be the advantage of having two copies of bzip over just one
static copy?

On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 03:01, Andrew wrote:

one alternative may be to have an alternative set of 'backup' or 'safe'
utils. Sorcery could use those if a spell (like glibc) has the "USE_SAFE"
variable set or something. Then you can have your nice dynamic executables
the rest of the time.
_______________________________________________
SM-Sorcery mailing list
SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page