On 03/15/2017 10:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > 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. To be clear, I'm not advocating removal, just trying to say that worrying about RHEL is the wrong approach. >>> 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 Yep, I maintain Rust which is one of these. But it does still default to shared linking for libc and any other FFI. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
