[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Review Rules and staticly linked packages agains dietlibc



Hi all,

I believe this is a very clear case, upstream does _not_ advise the use of dietlibc, their default makefile and install instructions don't use it. They do give instructions on howto use it if you want, but they don't _advise_ it.

So staying with the Fedora upstream manta I say don't use dietlibc, also
there has been much discussion about completly removing all static libs from Fedora, both core and extras have already dropped many static libs.

Why? Because static linking is BAD for lots of reasons, many the same reasons why the packaging guidelines state that packages should not compile and (staticly) link against their own version fo system libs, that is exactly what you're doing now linking against an own version of system libs. Please go read:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
(again if nescesarry)

And pay special attention to especially 1.14 and 1.15 where is written should, one _should_ read must unless there are good reasons why this is the exception that confirms the rule. Also notice:
"Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances."

This is not an exceptional circumstance a small gain in speed and footprint does not warrant exception.

I don't know if this is still possible now that FE has become bigger and more officialy organised but some time ago a rule was that if one packager vetoed a package it couldn't get in.

So hereby I veto inclusion / approval of ipvsd when staticly linked against anything, its not nescesarry, has no real gain (modern PC's are _fast_ and have _lots_ of mem), and is not even advised by upstream.

Regards,

Hans


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]