linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 17:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 10:11 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 12:17 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:
> >>>> RC> In addition to all this, another issue has popped up, which IMO
> >>>> RC> renders shipping static libs as part of Fedora very questionable
> >>>> RC> (to say the least)
> >>>> RC> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209316
> >>>>
> >>>> Surely this is a bug in RPM, 
> >>> RH's rpm maintainers don't seem to agree, they closed it "WONTFIX" :(
> >> It was jbj that closed it it WONTFIX, not the RH rpm maintainer.
> > 
> > <*grin*/> I am aware about this, nevertheless I regard anybody who
> > closes bugs on an FC package (Note: this PR was against rpm*fc5.*.rpm)
> > to be a RH maintainer.
> 
> Anybody in the fedorabugs group has the ability to close bugs in all of 
> Fedora. It doesnt have to be a RH maintainer 
Then it might be time to reconsider this practice. The way some sort of
PRs are being handled *at* RH slowly p***es ME off.

> and moreover the bug was not closed.
This half of your sentence is true, I stand corrected, in this case,
unlike many other before, it had not been closed.

Ralf