Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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. Extend that logic a little, and we shouldn't allow dietlibc in Extras at all. Either dietlibc OK for Extras and for Extras pkgs to link-against/use it, or not. ATM, I'm personally leaning toward the former, especially in cases where upstream and the packager/maintainer prefer using dietlibc. -- Rex -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
