Sam Hartman <[email protected]> writes: > For myself I'm unconvinced that it makes sense to have static libraries > used for aid. I was really hoping the security team would comment on > this one way or another.
That's kind of where I'm at too. There are enough other tricks that you can pull to hide files from static binaries that I'm not sure that the addition of shared library loading really changes the security profile enough to be worth the extra hassle. > I can certainly create libkrb5-static. But I'd rather have a broader > consensus of the project than just the aid maintainer agreeing that it's > worthwhile. We've been putting off this decision for a while. Some libraries still ship static versions, some don't, and there's no real consensus other than that we've generally followed upstreams who have dropped support for static linking. There are also various glibc features that are now very difficult to link statically, and there seems to be a general trend in glibc development away from support for static linkage. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
