On 15 March 2017 at 18:53, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> There are people who use the static libraries, for their own reasons, > and don't expect support when they do so. > I can only repeat that such people should consider linking own binaries against uClibc as this implementation is not affected by issue with hidden loading NSS DSOs which probably make such binaries useless on moving around against latest fedora/RH7 and RH5. Even at the end and idea of dropping building and providing glibc-static will be not accepted at least current list of packages which are using static linking with glibc libraries should be carefully reviewed. Looking on not full list of spec files which have listed "BuildRequires: glibc-static" i see for example mdadm abandoned static linking and again .. no one is crying about this. Definitely almost all of the those +190 static packages can be abandoned without even single change in other Fedora spec files. So far most of the cases which already found are using static linking with glibc is related to some test suits. For example only binutils provides ld and ld-gold and they are responsible for linking with other libraries, and software like golang probably should not be doing own static linking tests because for such static linking is responsible binutils ld. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
