Review Rules and staticly linked packages agains dietlibc

[Hans de Goede]

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