3 ms·
Absolutely not. Dynamic libraries are crucial for security. Static linking again and again has proved to be a security nightmare. It makes security updates dep
by goodpoint 4y ago
Absolutely not. Dynamic libraries are crucial for security.
Static linking again and again has proved to be a security nightmare. It makes security updates dependent from upstream release or full rebuilds making things difficult.
- spc476 4y agoBut aren't you dependent from upstream anyway? Or do you recompile from source the broken dynamic library? In my experience, most sysadmins these days don't compile from source.
- goodpoint 4y agoNo to both. The Linux distribution you use is responsible for backporting patches, fixing the vulnerability, building updated packages, testing them and sending the updates. You get targeted security updates without changes in any other functionality.
- naasking 4y agoProved to whom, when, and in what context? Systems that were designed for easy reproducible builds from the ground up are fairly new, so how sure are you the context hasn't changed?