glibc, read-only sources, and static linking

Robert Connolly robert at
Wed Oct 20 18:49:31 PDT 2004

Okay- Would it be reasonable to statically link everything we need to boot? 
aside from the daemons. init.d/checkfs uses mount, halt. mountkernfs uses 
grep. setclock uses hwclock. cleanfs uses find, grep, rm, chmod, chgrp, 
chown. The swap script uses swapon. The udev script uses ln, mkdir, mount, 
halt, /sbin/udev*. Maybe getty too. The modules script uses modprobe. This 
doesn't seem like very much.


On October 20, 2004 07:25 pm, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > For now would everyone agree chapter 6's bash be linked statically? I
> > want to say coreutils too, but some things are fine dynamicly linked,
> > like sort, dirname, du, while others like false, mv, ls, or echo should
> > surely be static. Dividing coreutils in two would not be fun to install
> > though.
> >
> > Ida know. I'm getting hungry though.
> >
> > Robert
>  In terms of security, perhaps a moot point (some people will always
> want to use a CD or whatever).  If you commit to using bash as the
> shell, echo is a builtin (not checked on bash-3.0 called as sh).  So are
> true,false although clearly that doesn't hold if you specify a path to
> them.  ls and mv are the big ones.  Maybe rebuild coreutils statically
> and just install whichever binaries you really need ?
> Ken
> --
>  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list