On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 15:50 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:17:38 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: > > > > 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"? > > To be accurate with regard to the packaging guidelines on linking against > shared libraries they say: "should as far as possible". Linking shared > against glibc _is_ possible. IMO, wrt. glibc this should be changed into "static linkage against glibc is strongly discouraged and must be explained for exceptional cases". > So, this raises the question why another libc > implementation -- let's call it a competing implementation -- shall be > preferred in this case? I guess you are aware there exist circular dependencies between the kernel, glibc and gcc? I.e. strictly speaking, an alternative libc must not even use a GCC which had been compiled against glibc, but should be accompanied by a corresponding, alternative GCC. Similar considerations apply when linking libraries having been compiled against an alternative libc with libraries which had been compiled against glibc - There is no guarantee whatsoever this will work (Think about inlined functions being used inside of libaries). Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
