On Thu, 10 May 2012 02:58:17 +0200 Roland Mainz wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> does the busybox ksh link against libshell.so or libshell.a? > > > > ast busybox links against libshell.so to conserve space since busybox > > and ksh are still independent executables. I may have to persuade > > Roland to merge at least sh/ksh and busybox so libshell can be linked > > statically into this binary.
> Erm... which means libshell can't be used by other consumers anymore. > IMO the busybox stuff and /usr/bin/sh should continue to link > seperately dynamically to libshell. That help at least a bit with the > risk management, e.g. if someone touches the busybox wrapper > /usr/bin/sh can't be screwed-up (and reverse). I think I have the wrong model here is busybox a monolithic hunk of sw or another unix platform that will support a.out executables _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
