3 ms·
I think what I’m missing is why all of this is necessary in a world without dynamic linking. We’re talking about purely build time dependencies, who cares about
by jppittma 2y ago
I think what I’m missing is why all of this is necessary in a world without dynamic linking. We’re talking about purely build time dependencies, who cares about those matching across static binaries? If it’s this much of a headache, I’d rather just containerize the build and call it a day.
- woodruffw 2y agoThis is pretty much my thought as well -- FWICT the ultimate problem here isn't a technical one, but a philosophical disagreement between how Rust tooling expects to be built and how Debian would like to build the world. Debian could adopt Rust's approach with minor technical accommodations (as evidenced by `cargo-deb`), but to do so would be to shed Debian's commitment to global version management.
- mook 2y agoI believe that's usually so they can track when a library has a security vulnerability and needs to be updated, regardless of whether the upstream package itself has a version that uses the fixed library.
- cpuguy83 2y agoBecause they are also maintaining all those build time dependencies, including dealing with CVE's, back porting patches, etc.
- oneshtein 2y agoWorld without dynamic linking was ended eons ago. You are just too young to remember that. But, if you like it, find like-minded people here on HN and create a successful distro with static linking only. Maybe you will success where others failed. Thank you in advance.