[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> Subject: Re: Question regarding policy (11.2)
> Date: 07/02/2003 14:42:06
> To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:56:48PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> 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.
> Cheers,
> aj
> -- 
> Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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 debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au

Reply to: