On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) said:
> I recalled this set of issues too from my previous time in fesco but I
> didn't find the meeting logs with the information.  I did find this meeting
> log: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070531
> where fesco voted to disallow static linking to dietlibc but deferred the
> question of linking to dietlibc at all.
> On that question, I would tend to agree with patrice's email that we've
> moved towards certain core systems being too core to let people use an
> alternative in Fedora (although alternatives may be provided).  Examples are
> kernel (no kmods) and C compiler (IIRC, there was discussion about building
> with clang that resolved in at least a decision on the list to use gcc).
> There is a line somewhere as to what is "core enough" to warrant this
> treatment but I think it's reasonable to think that the libc implementation
> falls on the same side as the C compiler.

I'd agree here - note that these 4 were also packages maintained by
the former maintainer of dietlibc... it would reasonably be simple just
for the new maintainer to fix that as part of picking them up.

I've already tried it with kismet, ip-sentinel and dhcp-forwarder, with no observable issues.  util-vserver is still orphaned.  Paul, if you'd like me to handle dhcp-forwarder for you, let me know.


devel mailing list

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie