Staticly compiled linux distrubution. Is it possible?
What do you think?

In message <637db92a.0307050958.6888d832@posting.google.com>, b
<zika@lova.every1.net> writes
Of course. Building a Linux-From-Scratch system requires the use of an
existing Linux distro to start with. In order to build a completely new
system from source, it *must* first be built statically to avoid the use
of the host distribution's libraries. Having done that, you now have
newly-built libraries to link a dynamic compilation to. But you can stop
once you've built the static system.
--
Joe

After a long battle with technology,zika@lova.every1.net (b), an earthling, wrote:
Certainly possible.

The "modern" approach is now based on using BusyBox, a statically
linked binary that, when given different names, performs the actions
of sh, ls, ar, cat, chmod, chgrp, cmp, cp, cpio, dc, dd, df, find, and
a whole barrel of other such typical programs needed on boot disks.

The PROBLEM with statically compiling everything is that unless you
can fold a bunch of apps together, as with BusyBox, you wind up having
HUGE wastage of both disk space and memory since libraries can no
longer be shared between programs.

It's fine if you have multipurpose stuff like BusyBox, and won't be
running anything else that would benefit from shared libs. It's an
absolute disaster if you were planning to build something that would
involve bigger X apps, perhaps GNOME/KDE stuff...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html
"A crafty and lecherous old hypocrite whose very statue seems to gloat
on the wenches as they walk the States House Yard."
-- William Cobbett on Benjamin Franklin

In article <637db92a.0307050958.6888d832@posting.google.com>,
b <zika@lova.every1.net> wrote:
Yes.

Dumb. Waste of resources. That's why dynamic libs are the standard.

BAJ