Dan McGee schrieb:
Just curious- what is the downside of building statically? It seems like it could be a plus in some ways, because you eliminate one more chance of breakage in early userspace. Of course, this also increases the size of your built binaries and increases the size of your initrd.
The binaries provided inside the klibc package were always compiled with -shared explicitly. The klibc-extras and klibc-udev were always compiled without -shared or -static, thus statically linked. This was an inconsistency, mixing static and shared binaries in the image. The "bug" I actually fixed was that klcc (without -static or -shared specified) linked a static binary, while gcc linked a shared binary, which is inconsistent. We can discuss building all klibc binaries statically, but then we do it by specifying -static in LDFLAGS explicitly, not by some weird klcc misbehaviour. About the breakage: When klibc is rebuilt, all klibc tools are rebuilt at the same time, so nothing should ever break.