On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:00:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Unless I'm missing something, and I did a text search through Policy, > >> Policy is currently silent on the topic of statically linked binaries > >> other than a brief mention in a footnote on convenience copies of code. > > > Please note that "statically linked binaries" can cover: > > 1) static executable statically linked with the glibc (they do not work well > > due to glibc plugins) > > This is the case that we're talking about here. In other words, > *entirely* static binaries. What you get with gcc -static.
Thus I propose the attached patch. (I used 'must' instead of 'should' since the FTP masters are rejecting such packages). I explicitely mentionned the GNU C libraries. Binaries linked with some other C libraries are a completly different kind of fish. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index aa5408a..d26e3d6 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -8466,7 +8466,11 @@ fi renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, <em>both</em> programs must be renamed. </p> - + <p> + Binary executables must not be statically linked with the + GNU C library, unless there is technical requirement for + doing so. + </p> <p> By default, when a package is being built, any binaries created should include debugging information, as well as