[roland at redhat.com: Re: More info on static binary/libnss* mystery]

Matthias Benkmann matthias at winterdrache.de
Mon Oct 7 12:26:05 PDT 2002


On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:05:07 -0600 Gerard Beekmans
<gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> On October 7, 2002 02:06 am, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > I'm afraid you are SOL if you want to use stock glibc 2.3 with those
> > old
> 
> <cut>
> 
> Very nice.
> 
> My vote goes for sed'ing a binary. 

Or rather use perl as someone else suggested so that it works even for
people who have configured sed to use glibc's regex functions that don't
support binaries.

>I really don't like the idea of
> having to do things twice such as Glibc twice. Running sed on a binary
> might be considered a dirty hack, but personally I don't really care
> about that. Whatever is in $LFS/static is only temporary and I don't
> care what we do to the files in there. As long as it runs.
> 
> The alternative as I see it would to re-write Bash and comment out the 
> function calls to getpwuid. Write out own that returns a false like
> Glibc would do when NSS is unavailable. But that's a lot more work and
> is it worth the effort? I doubt it.

And don't forget the possibility of copying libnss_{i don't know which we
need exactly, probably files will do fine} and libc.so.6 from the host to
/static/lib and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/static/lib for programs that segfault
such as bash.

MSB

-- 
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list