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.