Hello,
I'm the lead developer of Sandstorm.io. We do containerization stuff.
Often it's a lot easier to build a static binary than to try to make
all the right libraries available in a container.
We actually ship our own updates using our own update infrastructure,
so the security update benefits
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 03:16:37AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> But the lack of static library appears to be quite.. unusual, since other
> libs provide static versions. So, I downgraded severity to a wishlist
> at least, since I don't have a good reason for that.
Yeah, I recognize I'm not in
Control: severity -1 wishlist
20.01.2013 01:03, Kees Cook wrote:
I would strongly prefer to avoid shipping a static library for this package
to avoid programs linking to this non-dynamically, especially since it
makes security updates more difficult to track.
Well, this is a standard excuse fo
I would strongly prefer to avoid shipping a static library for this package
to avoid programs linking to this non-dynamically, especially since it
makes security updates more difficult to track. Do you have a compelling
need for this?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Package: libseccomp-dev
Version: 1.0.1-1
Severity: important
The subject says it all: there's no static library provided
by libseccomp-dev package.
Thanks,
/mjt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@l
5 matches
Mail list logo
