Hi, On mer, oct 20, 2004, Andreas Barth wrote: > I think we don't need to discuss about non-PIC for !i386 - this would be > plainly broken. But, as you told us, on !i386 the bug is not existent > (and looking at mips and alpha revealed no TEXTREL-section, so this > matches). So, this is not an issue in this case (but I remarked it if a > similar bugs happens to hit us, so that we remember in that case). > > For i386, using non-PIC in a shared lib is in general a RC bug. But, in > this case the maintainers decision for not using it has reasons. Of > course, we need to discuss whether there are better ways to achive it, > without breaking policy. Implementing it as static lib comes to my mind > for that. However, I'd like a broader discussion, including input from > the security team, on using a static lib. Therefore, for the time scale > of sarge, there is probably no better solution available, and I'm > marking this bug as sarge-ignore.
After discussion with upstream, PIC versus non-PIC is something like 10% difference in performance. Upstream wondered why it would an issue to use PIC under i386 only, so I will seek clarification on why the policy has such a requirement. If the requirement is only there to protect against the level of support of non-PIC under !i386, which would be strange, then I suppose it's ok to keep shipping the lib with non-PIC under i386. If the policy has some other justification, PIC will be used and static libs will always be available for end-user apps to build with so that full performance can be achieved. Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
