Re: Static binary, .so plugins that are static too - can it be done

[bert hubert <ahu at ds9a dot nl>]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 07:52:01AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 04:41:23PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> > > BTW, I don't know why someone wants to dlopen in a static binary. It is
> > > a very bad idea to begin with.
> > 
> > The only reason is that I wanted to be able to distribute a static binary
> > version of my program (customer didn't want any library version hassle).
> 
> We put in the library version ON PURPOSE. It has to be there.

I understand. I very much would have liked to have been able to have them
install glibc 2.2.3 'as well', but doing so requires upgrading ld-linux.so
too, which wreaks havoc on the rest of the system. So I have to resort to
linking with --dynamic-loader=/lib/ld-linux.whatever, and risk the next run
of ldconfig to resymlink ld-linux.so to it.

Or have I missed the obvious way of doing this? 

> > This program dlopen()s at runtime certain .so's which are database backend
> > modules. These .so's must also be static, because otherwise I did not
> > distribute a static version, and still depend on ld-linux.so etc.
> 
> I don't think it will work.

Ok, thanks. Will not try then.

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Versatile DNS Services  
Trilab                       The Technology People   
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet