Re: Packaging of static libraries
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:13:28PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> The initial argument was:
> > We in Debian are in a good position to defend our users from the
> > fallout from this problem. We could change our default compiler
> > options to favour safety, and provide more traditional semantics.
>
> The safety argument was presented as one that dominate all the
> others.
I disagree. It just says that there is a safety issue and we could improve
that situation. This is a public discussion, of course counterarguments about
other things, such as performance and usability, are allowed.
> I just say that other aspects must *also* be evaluated and balanced.
> And an small increase in safety is not always the best thing for the
> Debian project if it leads to severe performance/usability/... issues.
I agree, and I think everyone does. But at the same time, where we want that
balance to be may change with time. The quote above suggests that we may want
to shift towards more security. But nowhere does it imply or suggest that
there is no balance.
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=eyKN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: