On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:09 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > Hello, > > 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). Static linkage against dietlibc, IMO is nothing but a script-kiddy's attempt to "pimping Linux". There should not be any room for such undertakings. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
