> > It's not just the disk space. In fact, I'd argue that statically linked > applications take up more, not less, space.
That's only true if you have multiple statically linked applications that include the same code. But if you had a single app, guess which of 'statically linked app' and 'dynamically linked app + all required libraries' is going to be smaller. > > A far more important issue is the one Phil pointed out: you also need to have > the exactly correct version of the runtime libraries available. When you are > in a rescue situation (by definition strapped for time), you don't want to > find bacula requires a different glibc than the one the rescue CD has. Having > a statically linked one will all but guarantee that it will actually run when > you need it how you need it, even if you booted off a different Linux version. > If you haven't got a rescue cd with the stuff you need on it then you're already in trouble... but having said that you are right that there are situations where a static lib would make things easier though (eg your old hardware broke and you've been able to find new hardware but it's too new for the kernel on your boot cd). Would a chroot environment with all the required libraries work? (aside from talking up even more memory and disk space that is). James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
