Hi, Bill Allombert wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -8466,7 +8466,11 @@ fi > renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, <em>both</em> > programs must be renamed. > </p> > - > + <p> > + Binary executables must not be statically linked with the > + GNU C library, unless there is technical requirement for > + doing so. > + </p> What does it mean for there to be a technical requirement? For example, is there a technical requirement for bash-static to be statically linked? (A rescue disk could always include the libc shared library instead of using a statically linked binary.) xzdec contains binaries statically linked against liblzma but not against libc. That means they wouldn't run afoul of this requirement. Is that within the spirit of this policy? What is the purpose of this change? * avoiding nss pain when libc gets upgraded? * license compliance, it being too hard to remember to use Built-Using? * security, missing out on fixes when libc gets upgraded? * something else? Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140519174648.gm12...@google.com
