[LinuxBIOS] flashrom statically linked on linux - is this intentional?

[Peter Lemenkov]

Hello All!
Subj.
I have no clue why should I build it statically. Maybe some reasons
does exists?

[LinuxBIOS] flashrom statically linked on linux - is this intentional?

[Stefan Reinauer]

Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
> Subj.
> I have no clue why should I build it statically. Maybe some reasons
> does exists?

Just convenience. If you put it into a rescue system it should not have
any dependencies.

It's not a requirement

[Peter Lemenkov]

2007/8/5, Stefan Reinauer :
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> > Hello All!
> > Subj.
> > I have no clue why should I build it statically. Maybe some reasons
> > does exists?
>
> Just convenience. If you put it into a rescue system it should not have
> any dependencies.
>
> It's not a requirement

Thanks, understood.

[Peter Stuge]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 03:02:06PM +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
> Subj.
> I have no clue why should I build it statically. Maybe some reasons
> does exists?

The idea is that the flashrom binary may be copied from development
system to target system and the two may not have compatible libc.

That said, please make sure that the libc on the development system
is compiled so that it actually works on the target.

During the LinuxTag workshop we found out that libc in one SuSE
system was compiled to use i686 instructions that are missing from
the C3 CPU on the EPIA board so the binary didn't actually work
anyway. The EPIA system had a recent enough libc so we got it to work
by linking flashrom dynamically. We've discussed making that the
default again.

//Peter