Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <200007121648.MAA01960@disaster.jaj.com>you write:
  > 
  > > Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
  > > > Not necessarily.  One could certainly argue that if it's on the root
  > > > filesystem that it ought to be linked statically.
  > >
  > > Jeff, don't be ridiculous.  First, you should look at the reality.
  > 
  > Well... he is.  I speak as a system administrator now rather than a
  > developer; Jeff is quite correct in saying that this is an arguable point.
  > It is by no means ridiculous.
I've also been a sysadmin in my dark past.  And believe me, trying to debug
a system when all you've got is mount, sh, ln and init available is
a major PITA.

Uli -- I wasn't demanding you do that, I was only saying that there are
options out there that can be considered.  I wasn't trying to force you
to do anything, nor am I going to decree that everything on the root
filesystem should be statically linked.  I'm not so stupid as to think
that I can make that kind of decree and have everyone follow it without
being able to back it up or look at other alternatives.

  > Oh, we'll all be bitching at the GCC maintainers anyway even if they get it
  > all correct.  :-)  But I'd rather have a delayed, well-though-out solution
  > instead of a quick "this works perfectly for Linux, the rest of y'all are
  > screwed for another 18 months".
Precisely.  I'd rather spend the time up front and do it right rather than
hack up something that just works for linux.

The way we approach linux reminds me a lot of the "all the world is a vax
mentality" of the 80s and "all the world is a sun" mentality of the 90s.

jeff