Re: Question regarding policy (11.2)
There may also be cases where, from a security
perspective, it may be preferable to statically
link an executable so that there are fewer
potential points of compromise. Things like
forensic tools, where you might be examining a
system and you are not sure what may have been
Doesn't mean that every library requires a static
version, but there might be a requirement for
a carefully picked few to be mandated.
> From: Anthony Towns <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Question regarding policy (11.2)
> Date: 07/02/2003 14:42:06
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Sam Hartman <email@example.com> writes:
> > > However disks are cheap enough that it seems reasonable to ask
> > > people doing development to go buy a big disk.
> > It's not about disks so much as bandwidth. Disk may be cheap, but
> > bandwidth isn't, at lesast not universally. I've also no idea who
> > would want or need static libraries in this day and age, but maybe I'm
> > missing something obvious.
> LSB compliant programs have to either be statically linked, or distributed
> with the dynamic versions, of all the libraries they use, bar a few. Having
> the .a's available for that may be useful.
> Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
> ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
> you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au