On 03/15/2017 02:51 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
So you want to say that RH already guarantees Linux ABI compatibility below glibc? I would be really surprised if it would be truth .. and I'm 100% sure that exactly this part is not in RH support small prints. In other words you may have only impression that this part is already covered in support conditions.
A statically linked libc isn't much different from a dynamically linked libc in a container. Both rely on stable kernel interfaces. Same for alternative toolchains not based on GNU.
The main problem with static linking in Fedora is that we do not rebuild all static libraries once we update glibc-static. glibc only provides ABI compatibility for dynamic linking. The only saving grace is that we gradually cut back on the use of compatibility symbols to make header file changes, so incompatible changes have been quite rare for a while.
This isn't really glibc-specific, though, it probably applies to other static libraries, too. The impact of changes to glibc-static are just more visible.
Again try to answer on question why long time ago other OSes abandoned providing static libc?
I think those other operating systems simply do not expose internal development tools externally. They still use static linking in some places.
Florian _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
