Review Rules and staticly linked packages agains dietlibc

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 15:50 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:17:38 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> 
> > > 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"?
> 
> To be accurate with regard to the packaging guidelines on linking against
> shared libraries they say: "should as far as possible". Linking shared
> against glibc _is_ possible.
IMO, wrt. glibc this should be changed into "static linkage against
glibc is strongly discouraged and must be explained for exceptional
cases".

>  So, this raises the question why another libc
> implementation -- let's call it a competing implementation -- shall be
> preferred in this case?
I guess you are aware there exist circular dependencies between the
kernel, glibc and gcc?

I.e. strictly speaking, an alternative libc must not even use a GCC
which had been compiled against glibc, but should be accompanied by a
corresponding, alternative GCC.

Similar considerations apply when linking libraries having been compiled
against an alternative libc with libraries which had been compiled
against glibc - There is no guarantee whatsoever this will work (Think
about inlined functions being used inside of libaries).

Ralf