linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Callum Lerwick]

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 08:42 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> not relevant for the mentioned packages. They use only some syscalls
> from libc and almost all logic is implemented in the programs self.

If they need so little from dietlibc, why doesn't upstream just merge
what they need into their codebase?

> Typical glibc propaganda... Numbers [1] show that some dietlibc
> linked programs need only 10% of (non-shareable) memory than the
> glibc counterpart.
> 
> glibc's dynamic loader needs more instructions and memory at startup
> than the whole dietlibc-built program during its whole lifetime.

Please explain why these packages deserve such special treatment.
Where's the line? If dietlibc is so great, why aren't we moving the
entire distribution over to it?