On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > On 03/14/2017 05:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to > > RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. > > Even if Fedora removed it, we could still make the business decision to > add it back to RHEL. > > > Being unable to statically link their applications would be a > > showstopper for some, and would cause them to move to a different > > distro. > > This may still be a useful consideration for Fedora itself. Would we > alienate anyone if Fedora removed glibc-static? Yes, you would prevent us from being able to build static binaries for the QEMU system emulators in Fedora QEMU packages. This in turn prevents them from being used to provide seemless execution from non-native architecture chroots / containers. This is used for example, by flatpack to allow non-native architecture compilation, or as well as by myself for various personal projects needing non-native compilation environments. I agree there are many reasons why static libraries are a bad idea in general, particularly the security implications, but they are none the less useful at times and not every usage scenario has the same security requirements. NB, throwing out all the -static RPMs doesn't magically remove static compilation from Fedora. There are entire non-C language toolchains in Fedora that are based on static compilation - eg OCaml and Go Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
