On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Patrice Dumas wrote: > 3 packages submitted by Enrico are under review: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176579 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176582 > > Enrico linked these small daemons statically with dietlibc. > > Other contributors disagree with this choice, but I think that the > situation should be clarified once for all, and it should said > whether this is a blocker or not. > > My personal point of view is that linking statically (and against > dietlibc) shouldn't be a blocker if > * the maintainer is aware of the security implications, and > that he has to follow the security issues regarding the package > linked statically against and rebuild as soon as it is out, > * there is a gain in term of efficiency (and potentially portability). > > And it should be well understood that these are exceptions. I would say that FC/FE is using glibc, not another c library, and that packages build for FE should be linked against glibc. There is nothing wrong with options to build differently, so one could do: do: rpmbuild -ba foo.spec --define 'dietlibc 1' to get non-default builds from FE sources. But I don't think we should start using different c libraries for random binaries. Paul -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
