shell script variables
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Mon Oct 30 21:42:32 UTC 2006
On Sunday 29 October 2006 4:37 pm, extmaillist at linuxbox.cz wrote:
> 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've been using statically complied busybox for years with older versions of
gcc and older versions of glibc. I upgraded glibc and gcc and busybox
doesn't work anymore. What's wrong with busybox?"
You can trigger this bug with a hello world program:
cat > hello.c << EOF
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv)
{
printf("Hello world\n");
return 0;
}
EOF
gcc -static -Wl,--gc-sections hello.c && (./a.out | cat)
It's not our bug. Honest and truly it isn't.
To work around the bug, remove --gc-sections from Rules.mak. The resulting
binary will be bigger, but if you're statically linking against glibc you're
already doubling the size of your binary unnecessarily, so it shouldn't come
as a surprise that you need to make it even _bigger_ to work around one of
their bugs.
> 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.
What gave you the idea that glibc was stable? A package being widely used is
no guarantee of quality. (Sendmail, case in point.)
Rob
--
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
More information about the busybox
mailing list