Please turn off HTML in GMail.
On 03/15/2017 02:26 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
I can only repeat that such people should consider linking own
binaries against
uClibc as this implementation is not affected by issue with hidden loading NSS
DSOs which probably make such binaries useless on moving around against latest
fedora/RH7 and RH5.
Let's cut to the chase: You don't like glibc. OK. Do we need to create a 100+
email
chain to thousands of Fedora developers who have more important things to do in
their day? Feel free to discuss this on your blog or another medium.
Even at the end and idea of dropping building and providing glibc-static will be
not accepted at least current list of packages which are using static linking with
glibc libraries should be carefully reviewed. Looking on not full list of spec
files which have listed "BuildRequires: glibc-static" i see for example mdadm
abandoned static linking and again .. no one is crying about this.
Definitely almost all of the those +190 static packages can be abandoned without
even single change in other Fedora spec files.
You'll have to do better than "because I don't like it." Just yesterday
I had to
create a binary that was SLES 10 compatible and thank-the-lord I had static
libraries available in RHEL5 to be able to do it. There will be really strange cases
that need static libraries around. They are not hurting anyone by having them
present. Note: The previous sentence was brought to you buy a dynamic library supporter.
So far most of the cases which already found are using static linking with glibc
is related to some test suits.
For example only binutils provides ld and ld-gold and they are responsible for
linking with other libraries, and software like golang probably should not be
doing own static linking tests because for such static linking is responsible
binutils ld.
Those test suites are only executed during build time in Koji. They're not hurting
you or any other Fedora user.