On 19/05/2015 07:43, Bastien Roucaries wrote: > > Le 19 mai 2015 03:30:30 GMT+02:00, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> I have prepared a short document on static linking and Debian, with the >> aim to reduce existing static linking, document unavoidable static >> linking and find ways to mitigate unavoidable static linking. >> >> https://wiki.debian.org/StaticLinking I've added some comments on some downsides (incomplete code, references) and upsides (faster code in some cases) to the page.
On the topic of changing Debian policy, rather than completely removing static libs, my position would be that code shipped by Debian should not be statically linked, for the reasons given (better security and updates, mostly), but we should still ship static libs for users to link with. That is, because in some cases static linking does provide speed boosts (due to non-fpic code, on archs with register pressure; better linking), a user may want to build static versions of programs where they know that security is not an issue, i.e. for local use, not web-facing, etc. In particular, HPC fits this bill. To do this, the users will need static libs and we should still provide optimally-built static code (ie. non PIC code, also with any relevant security hardening flags removed). regards Alastair >> Alastair McKinstry, <alast...@sceal.ie>, <mckins...@debian.org>, >> https://diaspora.sceal.ie/u/amckinstry >> Misentropy: doubting that the Universe is becoming more disordered. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/555b991b.1090...@sceal.ie
