Re: Providing a static e2fsck ?
> > If we have a statically linked e2fsck, we should have also a statically
> > linked dpkg, or ls, or whatever.
Not necessarily. Fsck needs to be as robust as possible when it comes to
a corrupted file system as does everything that gets run before that point
(/bin/sh, init, etc.)
Once fsck has run, it may have fixed things such that libraries previously
unavailable can now be seen by dpkg, ls, or whatever.
The times where a disk is corrupted to the point that libraries unavailable
to start are fine after the check may be so rare that this is not worth
doing. I don't really know.
> > Using the rescue disk have been the standard solution for this for a
> > long time.
>
> Well I suggested it as a way to save space on the base disks and avoid the
> dependencies on library packages from the essential package containing fsck.
I don't see why we couldn't keep it dynamically linked on the base disks
to save space but have the debian package contain a statically linked version.
At the next upgrade, the "safer" statically linked version would get
installed.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- Donald Knuth
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: