[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:10:35 +0200
From: "piranna@...il.com" <piranna@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: static build and dlopen
> As for a possible workaround, you can link your program dynamically
> (possibly including most of the libraries that your modules _won't_
> need to reference as static-linked in the main program binary) and
> include a wrapper script, or wrapper static-linked-binary, to exec
> your program explicitly via the dynamic linker, as in:
>
> /path/to/ld-musl-i386.so.1 -- /path/to/your/node "$@"
>
> or similar. This avoids the need to have musl "installed" on the
> target system; everything can be in a self-contained directory. I know
> some users are already doing something like this for deployments;
> maybe at some point we'll think about making some official tools to
> make it easier.
Yes, I though about this option before, has a dumb statically linked
executable to work as PID 1 that just only exec Node.js and wait until
it finishes, so I can use a standard dynamically linked one and do
whatever I want, but it's more like an ugly hack and since I was
already thinking to use a statically linked Node.js to make simpler
the filesystem layout, then I followed that path. It's not what I
wanted, but seems it would be the easiest path. At least I've learn a
lot the last week while fighting with this things... :-)
--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
