shell script variables

[extmaillist at linuxbox.cz]

Hi Denis,

but anyways, I've been using statically compiled bb for years, and I really started having problems just with this one patch I mentioned before, so is situation with glibc really that bad? 
I mean, I don't really have problem starting using uClibc instead, but I'm just a bit afraid as I see it as quite big change. So is statically compiling to uClibc really safe? And is uClibc generally OK for production use? Is there something else I should be aware of? It's still kind of big surprise for me, as I'd much more expect glibc to be rock stable then uClibc.

thanks a lot in advance!

regards

Nik

On 2006-10-29, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sunday 29 October 2006 18:19, D?mi Zsolt wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > In Busybox 1.2.1 the following shell script working fine :
> > 
> > #cat test.sh
> > !/bin/sh
> > 
> > HTTPD_PID=$(pidof httpd)
> > echo $HTTPD_PID
> > 
> > #test.sh
> > 678
> > #
> > 
> > In Busybox 1.2.2
> > #test.sh
> > 
> > #
> > (just a new line printed!)
> > I have copied the 1.2.1 config into 1.2.2 folder and I have compiled the 
> > busybox 1.2.2 after that.
> 
> Yet another wictim of static linking with glibc?
> 
> Grab http://busybox.net/downloads/busybox-1.2.2.1.tar.bz2
> 
> It has the following:
> 
> #if ENABLE_STATIC && defined(__GLIBC__)
> #warning Static linking against glibc produces buggy executables
> #warning See sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3400
> #warning Note that glibc is utterly unsuitable for static linking anyway.
> #endif
> 
> --
> vda
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>