On 03/15/2017 02:51 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
So you want to say that RH already guarantees Linux ABI compatibility
below
glibc? I would be really surprised if it would be truth .. and I'm 100%
sure that exactly this part is not in RH support small prints. In other
words you may have only impression that this part is already covered in
support conditions.
A statically linked libc isn't much different from a dynamically linked
libc in a container. Both rely on stable kernel interfaces. Same for
alternative toolchains not based on GNU.
The main problem with static linking in Fedora is that we do not rebuild
all static libraries once we update glibc-static. glibc only provides
ABI compatibility for dynamic linking. The only saving grace is that we
gradually cut back on the use of compatibility symbols to make header
file changes, so incompatible changes have been quite rare for a while.
This isn't really glibc-specific, though, it probably applies to other
static libraries, too. The impact of changes to glibc-static are just
more visible.
Again try to answer on question why long time ago other OSes
abandoned
providing static libc?
I think those other operating systems simply do not expose internal
development tools externally. They still use static linking in some places.
Florian