rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx (Ralf Corsepius) writes: >> In another posting I gave a complete list of used *libc symbols. These >> were either simple syscall wrappers or well audited code (e.g. malloc()) >> so you will the same (or better) security as with glibc > Which is part of the OS and is being used and monitored by the whole > linux community. Do you have numbers, how many people read (and understood) the glibc and the dietlibc code? Speaking about a "whole linux community" does not tell something. > So, if ipvsd should suffer from problems it will be much more but > ipvsd package to be in trouble. ??? Why should 'ipvsd' affect other packages? > IMO, dietlibc should be banned from Fedora. Its only purpose is to > circumvent the OS's libc for highly questionable reasons. Efficiency is a "highy questionable reason"? > As a compromise, I could be persuaded to agree to dynamical linkage against > dietlibc, but statical linkage against dietlibc is non-acceptable to me. Dynamical linkage in dietlibc is highly experimental, is not supported on all archs and you gain absolutely nothing in the current 'ipsvd' case. Enrico -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
