Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) said:
> I recalled this set of issues too from my previous time in fesco but I
> didn't find the meeting logs with the information.  I did find this meeting
> log: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070531
>
> where fesco voted to disallow static linking to dietlibc but deferred the
> question of linking to dietlibc at all.
>
> On that question, I would tend to agree with patrice's email that we've
> moved towards certain core systems being too core to let people use an
> alternative in Fedora (although alternatives may be provided).  Examples are
> kernel (no kmods) and C compiler (IIRC, there was discussion about building
> with clang that resolved in at least a decision on the list to use gcc).
>
> There is a line somewhere as to what is "core enough" to warrant this
> treatment but I think it's reasonable to think that the libc implementation
> falls on the same side as the C compiler.

I'd agree here - note that these 4 were also packages maintained by
the former maintainer of dietlibc... it would reasonably be simple just
for the new maintainer to fix that as part of picking them up.

Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel