On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 at 20:24, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2026-07-19 10:50, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > the system just breaks > > otherwise (as in, the installation cannot proceed, full stop). > Yes, that's the static check I was referring to. And for coreutils this > particular static check results in a false positive for libsystemd, as > coreutils works well enough even if the static check is omitted. > > As I understand it, the current effort in Gnulib is how to pacify the > false positive in a way that doesn't require intrusive changes to > working source code by adding dlsym calls all over the place.
No, it's not a static check, and there's no false positive, everything is working exactly as it should > > this is not something that can or should be changed in any way. > > I don't see why not. GCC developers over the years have developed many > ways for applications to suppress or bypass GCC's false positives. (I > added some of those ways myself, decades ago.) This effort has > encouraged developers to put GCC's sometimes-fallible static checking to > good use. I imagine that Debian's packaging system could do likewise > without too much trouble, as an extension to how it currently behaves. > This would be more productive overall. Because it would be like saying "just change arithmetic so that 2+2 != 4" - it's just nonsense
