[Fedora-packaging] static linking draft

[Patrice Dumas]

Hello,

I think that the 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage
could be ameliorated, and also I am opposed to one point.

* I think that in the motivation a link to Ulrich page could be
  a good thing, since there are other valid arguments listed there:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html

* As showed by the thread 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-November/msg00713.html
there is a valid use of static libraries, namely in trusted environements
statically linking executables enhance their portability (although, sadly
since FC-5 this portability is limited to kernel 2.6.9). Doing the same 
with dynamically linking is also possible (by providing the libs and using
ld hacks), but much less unconvenient. I think that this should be explained
in the draft.

* I think that asking for FESCO permission to ship a static lib is wrong,
for 3 reasons. One is that packagers may know better than FESCO members if 
the package is in his area of expertise. Second because I think it is not
the FESCO role to participate in reviews. For me FESCO is about general 
issues, or last resort arbitrage in case of dispute, and there is enough 
work for FESCO already with those issues. If FESCO is meant to be involved
in reviews, it should grow in size over time. And the third reason is that
it unnecessarily slow down things and add work to reviewers/submitters.

--
Pat