On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:15:10AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> First, I'd like to change the dpkg Pre-Depends from lzma to xz-utils,
> the latter is a bit bigger in size (lzma 172 KiB; xz-utils 504 KiB,
> 160 KiB in share/doc/ and liblzma2 304 KiB, 124 KiB in share/doc/) but
This just seems the obvious right thing™ to do, given the fate of lzma
itself.
> Second, I'd like to switch from statically to dynamically linking
> against zlib and libbz2, eventually liblzma too (affecting dpkg-deb)
> and libselinux (affecting dpkg itself only on Linux). Here's the
> arguments I know of against and in favour, with rebuttals:
I'm personally convinced by your arguments. Still, I'd like if you
consider the transitional idea of having---say, for a release---two
different binary packages shipping dpkg: "dpkg" (essential: yes) and
"dpkg-static" (essential: no), the latter containing a fully statically
linked version of dpkg, coming as /usr/bin/dpkg-static.
I've seen this for other safety-critical tools, e.g. the dar backup tool
which comes both as "dar" and "dar-static". I personally don't believe
there would be *much* use of "dpkg-static", but having it around for a
release would enable to see if/how many (paranoid) people actually
install it. Would that make sense in your opinion? Would it be worth?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature