static vs dynamic linking

Ryan.Oliver at Ryan.Oliver at
Sun Jul 6 17:47:02 PDT 2003

> You are correct, there is no technical reason for compiling the Pass 1
> binutils and gcc statically. But IMO it is ok to leave it in the book,
> couple of reasons. One, it imparts a wee bit of knowledge about static
> and dynamic linking. Two, it shows the "roots" of LFS.

Yeah, it makes no difference either way...

Originally it was to keep the tools self contained because long ago we were
toying with the idea of being able to skip the second gcc and binutils
build at the expense of some "cleanliness" to shorten the build time.

Check the "Shortcut Alerts" in the hint...

Either way from an educational point of view (and a historical one as
Tushar points out) I reckon its nice to show the static build...


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