Hello, I think that the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage could be ameliorated, and also I am opposed to one point. * I think that in the motivation a link to Ulrich page could be a good thing, since there are other valid arguments listed there: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html * As showed by the thread https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-November/msg00713.html there is a valid use of static libraries, namely in trusted environements statically linking executables enhance their portability (although, sadly since FC-5 this portability is limited to kernel 2.6.9). Doing the same with dynamically linking is also possible (by providing the libs and using ld hacks), but much less unconvenient. I think that this should be explained in the draft. * I think that asking for FESCO permission to ship a static lib is wrong, for 3 reasons. One is that packagers may know better than FESCO members if the package is in his area of expertise. Second because I think it is not the FESCO role to participate in reviews. For me FESCO is about general issues, or last resort arbitrage in case of dispute, and there is enough work for FESCO already with those issues. If FESCO is meant to be involved in reviews, it should grow in size over time. And the third reason is that it unnecessarily slow down things and add work to reviewers/submitters. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
