static vs dynamic linking

Joel Miller cheeziologist at
Fri Jul 4 11:53:16 PDT 2003

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:50:34 -0600, Dennis J Perkins 
<djperkins at> wrote:

> I was looking at how the the toolchain is built in the development 
> version of LFS and I have a question.  Why bother with static linking 
> anymore?  Unless I am mistaken, when you build binutils and gcc the first 
> time, you actually statically linking the host's libraries.  After glibc 
> is built, you lock into the new glibc in /stage1 and then rebuild 
> binutils and gcc to use the new glibc.  Since you don't chroot until 
> later, static linking is not necessary.

I am not the best person to answer this question, but all i can tell you is 
two things. First, it has something to do with multiple levels of removing 
yourself from your host system so as to have a more clean tool chain. 
Second, the best way for you to understand is to read the pure lfs hint. I 
believe it is still located at and it should be 
able to provide you with the explinations you require.

Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 298182
cheeziologist at attbi dot com is about to be invalid...plz use this new 

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

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list