Review Rules and staticly linked packages agains dietlibc

[Enrico Scholz]

rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) writes:

>> In another posting I gave a complete list of used *libc symbols. These
>> were either simple syscall wrappers or well audited code (e.g. malloc())
>> so you will the same (or better) security as with glibc
> Which is part of the OS and is being used and monitored by the whole
> linux community.

Do you have numbers, how many people read (and understood) the glibc and
the dietlibc code? Speaking about a "whole linux community" does not
tell something.


> So, if ipvsd should suffer from problems it will be much more but
> ipvsd package to be in trouble.

??? Why should 'ipvsd' affect other packages?


> IMO, dietlibc should be banned from Fedora. Its only purpose is to
> circumvent the OS's libc for highly questionable reasons.

Efficiency is a "highy questionable reason"?


> As a compromise, I could be persuaded to agree to dynamical linkage against
> dietlibc, but statical linkage against dietlibc is non-acceptable to me.

Dynamical linkage in dietlibc is highly experimental, is not supported
on all archs and you gain absolutely nothing in the current 'ipsvd'
case.



Enrico