On 15 March 2017 at 14:16, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: [..]
> The main problem with static linking in Fedora is that we do not rebuild > all static libraries once we update glibc-static. glibc only provides ABI > compatibility for dynamic linking. The only saving grace is that we > gradually cut back on the use of compatibility symbols to make header file > changes, so incompatible changes have been quite rare for a while. > > This isn't really glibc-specific, though, it probably applies to other > static libraries, too. The impact of changes to glibc-static are just more > visible. > > Again try to answer on question why long time ago other OSes abandoned >> providing static libc? >> > > I think those other operating systems simply do not expose internal > development tools externally. They still use static linking in some places. > You are not even trying to answer on above question .. a bit sad because you are simple ignoring some very good technical arguments. Trying to crush what you are thinking about subject using stronger phrases would illogical and I'm not going to follow this path. Really pleas try to stick to technical arguments. Discussion it is like fencing but using arguments. It is really hard try to convince someone using what "I think". Look again on what I've already wrote and you will find that none of my argumentation relies on what "I'm thinking". Again: there was already enough bad cases in Unix history to form conclusion that none of the regular distribution consumers should rely on things below libc public ABI/API because unconsciously using such parts they been doing for themselves more harm than real financial/reputation or other damages to anyone who is trying to provide commercial or non-commercial support of any OS distribution. I'll try to rephrase above. In the past I've been working on whole rpm based distribution and more than decade ago I made decision about separate all static libraries into -static subpackages. After what we (me and few my colleagues) done other distros started mimicking this pattern. It was done consequently on scale +6k source packages (used by ~few thousands end users) and after this I found that it was none real case scenario where those static packages are really needed. Look on what is now in Fedora and you will find that binutils has some quite strange or easy to handle other way modifications in spec file only to fully follow what is in source code binutils test suit. What I've personally tested long time ago still stands firmly against you honest impression (that such resources still may be good to have around in form of packages). In other words: what you see now in distribution like Fedora like some -static subpackages it is because what I've personally started more than decade ago. IMO now is enough good sample of using such approach (separating static libraries) to form conclusion that this was kind of mistake and all those static libraries can be dropped without any noticeable consequences .. on even some hard/nasty developers oriented install profiles. With all what you are trying (honestly) to tell is like with some aspects of quantum physics which says that probability that bucket of water standing on top of open fire may freeze is non-zero. Problem is that in real word maintained by real engineers it is really hard to observe something like this :) Many years ago I've been thinking just like you because same like you I've been using intuition. Trust me. If you are still *thinking* that you are right, it may be really truth .. that you are *only thinking* that you are right :) kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
