Re: [klibc] klibc and what's the next step?

H. Peter Anvin
2006-07-11T18:46:54Z

Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Maw, 2006-07-11 am 11:22 -0700, ysgrifennodd H. Peter Anvin:
>> You know how much code there is in glibc to make your /bin/ls still work?
>
> A static linked pre libc 2.2 (thats libc not glibc) ls works fine today,
> as does a 0.98.5 era built rogue binary

Didn't work when I tried it, although that was a shared binary (and yes,
I had the library there.) I assumed mostly that ZMAGIC support had
bitrotted -- even back in '95 there was a lot of problems with ZMAGIC
binaries when ext2 block size was > 1K.

-hpa