Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Andrew Antle
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:16:09 -0500 > schrieb Andrew Antle : > >> >> Do you have a link to this PDF? >> > >> > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html >> > >> > Cf. http://sta.li/faq >> >> http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Heiko Baums
Am Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:16:09 -0500 schrieb Andrew Antle : > >> Do you have a link to this PDF? > > > > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html > > > > Cf. http://sta.li/faq > > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf Thanks for the links. Greetings, Heiko

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Andrew Antle
>> Do you have a link to this PDF? > > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html > > Cf. http://sta.li/faq http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf -- Andrew Antle

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Andrew Antle
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: >> Static libraries are bad. Besides taking up diskspace, they're just >> bad to use. Ulrich Drepper has a nice PDF about this. > > Do you have a link to this PDF? http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html Cf. http://sta.li/faq -

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Heiko Baums
Am Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:14:27 +0100 schrieb Jan de Groot : > If a program is built static against an insecure library, upgrading > the insecure library means the static binary is still vulnerable. > That's what Allan means. Well, that's obvious. > When we switch to glibc-based initramfs, there sh

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Jan de Groot
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 14:59 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:58:24 +1000 > schrieb Allan McRae : > > > I disagree. Static libraries generally suck and hide rebuilds needed > > for security issues. So unless something specifically needs the > > static library, I think it should

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Heiko Baums
Am Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:58:24 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae : > I disagree. Static libraries generally suck and hide rebuilds needed > for security issues. So unless something specifically needs the > static library, I think it should be removed. Such rebuilds are only hidden if a program is linked

Re: [arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Allan McRae
On 01/02/10 22:11, Heiko Baums wrote: Hi, I had this issue only twice by now, but I think this is a general problem. In the recent times libraries in the repos are only built dynamically while the statical versions are disabled. This can lead to several problems if someone needs to compile a p

[arch-general] Libraries should also be built statically

2010-02-01 Thread Heiko Baums
Hi, I had this issue only twice by now, but I think this is a general problem. In the recent times libraries in the repos are only built dynamically while the statical versions are disabled. This can lead to several problems if someone needs to compile a program and needs to link statically agai