linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:09 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 3 packages submitted by Enrico are under review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176579
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176582
> 
> Enrico linked these small daemons statically with dietlibc.
> 
> Other contributors disagree with this choice, but I think that the
> situation should be clarified once for all, and it should said
> whether this is a blocker or not.
>
> My personal point of view is that linking statically (and against 
> dietlibc) shouldn't be a blocker if
> * the maintainer is aware of the security implications, and
>   that he has to follow the security issues regarding the package 
>   linked statically against and rebuild as soon as it is out,
> * there is a gain in term of efficiency (and potentially portability).

Static linkage against dietlibc, IMO is nothing but a script-kiddy's
attempt to "pimping Linux". There should not be any room for such
undertakings.

Ralf