linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>]

Hello,

3 packages submitted by Enrico are under review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176579
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176582

Enrico linked these small daemons statically with dietlibc.

Other contributors disagree with this choice, but I think that the
situation should be clarified once for all, and it should said
whether this is a blocker or not.

My personal point of view is that linking statically (and against 
dietlibc) shouldn't be a blocker if
* the maintainer is aware of the security implications, and
  that he has to follow the security issues regarding the package 
  linked statically against and rebuild as soon as it is out,
* there is a gain in term of efficiency (and potentially portability).

And it should be well understood that these are exceptions.

Of course the submitter has still to agree with that.

--
Pat