Re: compiling STAR staticaly under Linux

Francois Vigneron <[email protected]> wrote:

> I would like to be able to use STAR in a rescue environment under Linux 
> with Redhat FC4.
> The FC4 Redhat rescue environment doesn't seem to include STAR, although 
> the main install offers an old version of STAR.
> (Some former Redhat rescue environnement did even include a broken 
> CPIO.... that wasn't able to execute with the dynamic libs!)
> In order to avoid problems, I would like to compile a STATIC version of 
> STAR.

Why?

The time of static compiling did virtually end in 1988.
The fact that static compiling has been kept for special situations
is caused by unclean system setup.......
This time did end 2 years ago, when Solaris 10 demonstrated that 100% dynamic
linking works like a charm.



> I have got static versions of grub, cpio, tar, bzip2, etc... in order to 
> avoid dynamicaly linked lib problems when libs and distrib changes.

Strange, Solaris uses the dynamic libs - namely libc - to prevent
kernel interface changes to become visible in userprograms. Does Linux use
libc as additional cause of problems?

> So far, I have been using CPIO for backup and RESTAURE. A backup is 
> worth nothing if it can not be restaured.

I strongly recommend not to use cpio for backups. Cpio is an outdated 
archive format with many limitations. Let me give a hint: if you have
star, there is no need to have cpio also. Star includes full cpio
support.

> My opinion is that critical Unix commands should be linked "static" 
> because if you have got a lib problem then you can not restaure your
> backups from the rescue DVD. Saving a few megabytes on disk is not very 
> financialy usefull considering that a small disk is now a 80GByte disk.
>
> I have tried to compile STAR staticaly. But I get mixed up in the 
> compile environnement. Is there a clean way to do this?
> Have I missed something in the manual?

README.compile gives hints and 'ved' comes with a sample static makefile.

smake LDOPTX=-dn should work if you have a working static libc.

Let me warn you: I asume that you will fail on Linux. glibc seems no 
longer to be suitable for static linking since about 5 years because 
of a rotten gcvt() implementation in glibc.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [email protected]		(uni)  
       [email protected]	(work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily