[Monotone-devel] Static binaries

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 04:58:49PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> > (Why do we have two of these now?  I can't tell which one I would
> > need or what the real difference is; do we expect that users can?  It
> > would be better to just provide whichever single binary works on the
> > greatest variety of possible systems...)
> 
> Well, the first is linked statically to all libs but libc, and thus needs a 
> glibc 2.4 at runtime, while the second is completely static, and only needs a 
> system with a 2.6 kernel. 
> 
> So, in theory, the second would be the preferred binary, because it runs on a 
> wider variety of possible systems. But for static binaries, NSS is limited, 
> see http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/FAQ.html#s-2.22.

Huh, did someone actually build a glibc with --enable-static-nss so
that that would work?  Cool.  If so, I'm tempted to say just provide
that one (at least until someone with an exotic nsswitch.conf
complains; such people are *really* rare).

(If it wasn't a special glibc built with --enable-static-nss, then it
still requires glibc 2.4 at runtime, no?)

BTW, the second should still say "x86" in its name somewhere.

-- Nathaniel

-- 
"But suppose I am not willing to claim that.  For in fact pianos
are heavy, and very few persons can carry a piano all by themselves."