FAQ   Search   Memberlist  
Profile    Log in to check your private messages    Register    Log in
Static vs, dynamic -

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BLAG Forum Index -> open discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
berkbw
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 12:31 am    Post subject: Static vs, dynamic - Reply with quote

Considering the CHEAP co$t of storage.. and the fast loading of data.. I would like to revert to static linking of libs.

Reason? - - Normally, stuff works without consideration of the latest kernel or gcc rev.

It really sux when, after an upgrade, stuff is broke/dead. So --

I know that the source is available, but is there a way to continue the upgrade path via source? and automated compile?

b-

jebba
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, it would be a bit of a project, but not impossible. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but it may be fun to play around with. You'd likely just need to set up your rpmbuild environment to make static binaries. Automation you may have to invent yourself for it, or hunt to see if anyone has ever done anything similar.
berkbw
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Sir - The Devil is in the details - the details being the actual, functioning, detailed choices in the config file.

I suspect that you have compiled... say.. kernels, no? So have I. As a matter of fact I, back in the day, used to tear them apart and rewrite them. Both in compiler languages and machine. -back in the day-

Any possibility of getting these config files as they are when YOU used them? I'm talking about the choices of options in the source tree, not the nits and lice of compile/assembly.

I may be older than dirt, with the memory of a lemming, but there is a fair chance that I could do this. There is also a fair chance that others might want to do this also.

I don't follow the kernel board, and would never understand what pgm flags are passed/massaged by the kernel. I DO remember XENIX tho.. and many changes from L2.4 to 2.6. I would like my stuff to be:
reenterant [boy, did I have a problem in the workplace with that - last week!]
non-reliant upon kernel handling
and, of course, able to be time-sliced.

b-

jebba
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. You want kernel .config files?
berkbw
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

HA HA -- no no..not kernel... but that's interesting. The last time I compiled a BLAG kernel there were multiple instances of seemingly the same choices in config. Life's too short for me to sort that out.

What I was thinking/looking at are the differences that make BLAG BLAG. I really like and admire your efforts and results.

I am NOT complaining about anything at all. Just rambling. Your answer to me could be "it is what is is", and I would accept it.

Already I've taken too much of your time on this.

b-

jebba
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uh, "it is what it is"? heh. that's my answer cuz i still don't grok it. ;)

The BLAG packages have *blag* in their name. The vast vast vast majority of packages are just pillaged from some upstream maintainer.

Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BLAG Forum Index -> open discussion
Page 1 of 1

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP