Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...?

[Linda Walsh]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it is not political, nor is it related to bash at all
> -mike

Then can you give any technical reason why a static
lib that uses no network services (i.e. running
on a mini-root ) couldn't be made available for
the various calls that currently claim "dynamic library
support" is necessary.

I know it is not just 'bash'.  Googling for the subject
shows it's a problem for many projects, so I find it
very odd that such a static lib couldn't be provided.

If an upstream DB provider (NSS, say), refuses to provide
a static lib, then the static lib Gnu provided would exclude
them, stating the reason why.

Seems simple enough to provide such a widely asked for 
feature -- even if it has to be less functional/flexible
than the dynamic version (i.e. Gnu would have done the best
they could under the circumstances). 

But the bash option for static even lists the reason for
such -- but with no way to actually use the option.  *sigh*.