Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) said: > I recalled this set of issues too from my previous time in fesco but I > didn't find the meeting logs with the information. I did find this meeting > log: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070531 > > where fesco voted to disallow static linking to dietlibc but deferred the > question of linking to dietlibc at all. > > On that question, I would tend to agree with patrice's email that we've > moved towards certain core systems being too core to let people use an > alternative in Fedora (although alternatives may be provided). Examples are > kernel (no kmods) and C compiler (IIRC, there was discussion about building > with clang that resolved in at least a decision on the list to use gcc). > > There is a line somewhere as to what is "core enough" to warrant this > treatment but I think it's reasonable to think that the libc implementation > falls on the same side as the C compiler. I'd agree here - note that these 4 were also packages maintained by the former maintainer of dietlibc... it would reasonably be simple just for the new maintainer to fix that as part of picking them up. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
