This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 20 Jul 2016 21:23, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2016-07-20 17:19, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > I assumed it was intended as a recovery tool if something is wrong with the > > > DSO symbolic links, which is why I preserved it. On the other hand, in this > > > day and age, systems will certainly not boot if simple binaries like ln cannot > > > run, and the system administrator will not be able to log in, so such recovery > > > actions appear rather unrealistic without the help of a rescue system. > > > > I think sln / static ldconfig are recovery tools for *when already logged > > in* (and having just made a mistake with the links). > > I agree about that for ldconfig. Now I do wonder if it is the job of > the libc to provide sln, when alternatives like a statically linked > busybox can recover from many more breakages. agreed -- i think sln should die -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |