Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Ulrich hasn't worked for Red Hat for many many many years. As far as I know, he works for Goldman Sachs now. He is also no longer "the glibc maintainer". There are now a whole bunch of people responsible: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS Kevin

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 20 March 2017 at 13:25, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > Please don't try to convince me. Rally forget about me. I'm probably one > of > > the smallest beatles here. > > Just please sit down with him and try to convince *him* that there is no > at > > all risk here. > > I'm

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:16:56PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 20 March 2017 at 09:50, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > I've already described this multiple times trying to use different > > > descriptions/analogies about well known *glibc NSS ABI issue*. > > > You

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 20 March 2017 at 09:50, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I've already described this multiple times trying to use different > > descriptions/analogies about well known *glibc NSS ABI issue*. > > You cannot fix this issue in *any libc implementation which is using > NSS*. > >

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 01:38:31AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 22:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I read through the whole thread and I still don't understand why > > packaging glibc-static in Fedora is not a good thing. > > > > I've already

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 22:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I read through the whole thread and I still don't understand why > packaging glibc-static in Fedora is not a good thing. > I've already described this multiple times trying to use different descriptions/analogies about

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 06:21, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: [..] > > So here is kind contradiction because my past experience that such > binaries > > are used so long (+6 years) that it causes silent issues with conflicts > on > > kernel<->user space and sooner or later initial

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:25:38PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 19:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > Although I'm nit-picking, this isn't entirely true. > > > > OCaml doesn't statically link C code, as you can see from: > > > > $ ldd

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:21:06PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 21:40, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > Did you try to link it against uClibc? > > > > Yes, supermin supports several alternate libc. > > > So it is -1 from critical glibc-static using

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 19:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Although I'm nit-picking, this isn't entirely true. > > OCaml doesn't statically link C code, as you can see from: > > $ ldd /usr/bin/virt-builder > [..] So am I right that it looks like Ocaml can be removed as well from

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 21:40, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Did you try to link it against uClibc? > > Yes, supermin supports several alternate libc. So it is -1 from critical glibc-static using projects :) kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 09:11:56PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 20:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > It would break supermin which compiles a tiny statically linked init. > > > > Actually as of today we are using dietlibc instead of glibc-static on > >

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 20:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It would break supermin which compiles a tiny statically linked init. > > Actually as of today we are using dietlibc instead of glibc-static on > every architecture that Fedora supports resulting in massive savings > in

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > This may still be a useful consideration for Fedora itself. Would we > alienate anyone if Fedora removed glibc-static? It would break supermin which compiles a tiny statically linked init. Actually as of today we are using dietlibc

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 05:08:50PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > There are entire non-C language toolchains in > Fedora that are based on static compilation - eg OCaml Although I'm nit-picking, this isn't entirely true. OCaml doesn't statically link C code, as you can see from: $ ldd

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On 16 March 2017 at 04:50, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > [..] >> >> > And one more clarification: remove static libraries from glibc distro >> > packages does not blocks static linking. >> > It

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > [mode=kidding] > So stop provide glibc-static and redirect those guys to /dev/tree in > uClibc garden may be kind of "solution" how to block (easy way) violating > LGPL .. > [/mode] I'm not kidding, and uClibc is also under the LGPL. >> ucLibc has the same issue, by the

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 16 March 2017 at 16:17, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > BTW: during checking that current Fedora glibc static binaries are not > ready even solve those well known scenarios I found that already glibc spec > file is generating glibs-nss-devel subpackage. > > S rpm -qpl

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift) [resent]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:40:34 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > (Resending below as looks like I've replied only to Jan) also resending On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 06:18:56 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I saw already such tweaks in many Fedora specs %check sections. > IMO such %ifing inside or around

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

(Resending below as looks like I've replied only to Jan) On 16 March 2017 at 18:01, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:32:06 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > OK here is full list of spec files which have glibc-static in > BuildRequires: > > > >

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 16/03/17 23:24 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jonathan Wakely wrote: If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. Being unable to statically link their applications would be a showstopper for some, and

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 16 March 2017 at 22:24, Kevin Kofler wrote: > The thing is, proprietary applications statically linking to glibc are > highly likely to be in violation of the LGPL. Or how many proprietary > applications do you know that distribute their object files (and/or their >

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 06:18:56 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I saw already such tweaks in many Fedora specs %check sections. > IMO such %ifing inside or around %check is incorrect/not needed and can be > removed. > Why? Because: > - all possible to use package tests should be by default enabled > -

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > BuildRequires:qt5-qtbase*-static* There are a few small libraries that Qt upstream ships only as static, because they are not covered by the binary compatibility guarantees: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/qt5-qtbase.git/tree/qt5-qtbase.spec#n874 The main

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to > RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. > > Being unable to statically link their applications would be a > showstopper for some, and would cause them to move to a

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Long time ago I've been able to gain minimize number of dependencies by > injecting LDFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed" into %configure macros. As on mean > time cmake emerged this move will be not so effective as it was decade > ago. Today I think that better solution could apply

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 03/15/2017 05:32 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > ./r/rust.git/rust.spec:BuildRequires: llvm-static This one is conditional, generally disabled. We use it to break rust's bootstrap dependency when llvm is being rebased to a new soname. ___ devel mailing

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:32:06 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > OK here is full list of spec files which have glibc-static in BuildRequires: > > ./g/gdb.git/gdb.spec:BuildRequires: glibc-static%{bits_local} This is a false positive as it is enclosed by: %if 0%{?_with_testsuite:1} I have no

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 16 March 2017 at 12:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote: [..] > 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

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 15/03/17 19:26 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On 15 March 2017 at 18:53, Jonathan Wakely 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

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 16 March 2017 at 04:50, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: [..] > > And one more clarification: remove static libraries from glibc distro > > packages does not blocks static linking. > > It will only removes possibility linking against static glibc libraries. > > Yes. This is a

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On 15 March 2017 at 00:05, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: >> >> If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to >> RHEL I know of companies that might stop being

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

OK here is full list of spec files which have glibc-static in BuildRequires: ./g/gcc.git/gcc.spec:BuildRequires: glibc-static ./g/gdb.git/gdb.spec:BuildRequires: glibc-static%{bits_local} ./g/gdb.git/gdb.spec:# multilib glibc-static is open Bug 488472: ./g/gdb.git/gdb.spec:#BuildRequires:

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

Please turn off HTML in GMail. On 03/15/2017 02:26 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: 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

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 03/14/2017 03:46 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: This problem is wy bigger than you may be thinking. Above it is only tip of the iceberg .. # dnf list | grep -- -static | grep -c x86_64 196 This includes all available packages, but if you look at the actual usage on an average system, i.e.

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 15 March 2017 at 18:53, Jonathan Wakely 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

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 15/03/17 18:24 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: On 03/15/2017 01:05 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. This is not the right list for discussing Red Hat Enterprise

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 15/03/17 13:51 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On 15 March 2017 at 00:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. Being unable to statically

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 03/15/2017 10:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: >> On 03/14/2017 05:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to >>> RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 03/15/2017 01:05 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. This is not the right list for discussing Red Hat Enterprise Linux matters, but please be advised that the

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > On 03/14/2017 05:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to > > RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. > > Even if Fedora removed it, we could

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

> Wiadomość napisana przez Josh Stone w dniu 15.03.2017, o > godz. 17:56: > > This may still be a useful consideration for Fedora itself. Would we > alienate anyone if Fedora removed glibc-static? I think that this particular case should not be removed. Some tools do need

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 03/14/2017 05:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to > RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. Even if Fedora removed it, we could still make the business decision to add it back to RHEL. > Being

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 14 March 2017 at 20:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > These are very useful for building embedded systems, initramfses, > static linked binaries of large proprietary programs, and any case > where you don't want to depend on the system libraries. > There are still none of

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 15 March 2017 at 00:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to > RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. > > Being unable to statically link their applications would be a >

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 14/03/17 20:15 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:46:38PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 17:57, Christopher wrote: > Despite such simple to fix bug using static libraries should be removed. > > Your comment makes me

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:46:38PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 14 March 2017 at 17:57, Christopher wrote: > > > Despite such simple to fix bug using static libraries should be removed. > > > > Your comment makes me wonder if there is *any* appropriate use of > >

Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 14 March 2017 at 17:57, Christopher wrote: > Despite such simple to fix bug using static libraries should be removed. >> >> > > Your comment makes me wonder if there is *any* appropriate use of > boost-static. If not, why is it even packaged? > I'd be happy to