Glibc hell

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Spacen Jasset" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> You may have to statically link (which, of course, is not officially 
>> supported by glibc, for very stupid reasons).
>
> I am not sure that the reasons are "stupid". It is similar, for example to 
> kernel32.dll on windows, which you cannot link to statically *at all* libc 
> is a comparable interface in that it calls into the kernel.

The reasons are not so concrete.  It's more a matter of opinion than 
requirement.

For example, see this web page: 
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html

I ran into this when trying to get busybox working.  It took me a while to 
figure out, but I ended up using a dynamic glibc.  Apparently, there are 
bugs in glibc with static linking that the developers refuse to fix because 
"static linking glibc isn't a valid requirement."

Yet some very important programs are statically linked.  For example, 
ldconfig and  nash (Red Hat's system loader shell).  It just seems stupid to 
me when they preach that you should *always* dynamically link, yet there are 
cases where they found it more suitable to statically link.

Just my opinion.

-Steve