glibc, read-only sources, and static linking

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Oct 20 10:32:08 PDT 2004


Bennett Todd wrote:

> I don't like shared libs, I don't. I think they were a nice hack for
> ekeing out a small additional increment of performance in the days
> of small memory and disk, but these days the performance and
> complexity cost they inflict seems out of proportion to the benefit.

Well, if one of your libs is used in more than one place and that lib 
has a security vulnerability you lose the only other advantage of shared 
libs that I know of - because it's shared, you only have to upgrade the 
one lib.  In your situation you'd have to find all the binaries that 
have the lib statically compiled in and recompile them all with a fixed 
version of the lib.  Admittedly on dedicated servers this shouldn't be 
too much of a burden, as they'd have relatively few packages on anyway, 
but I doubt your approach is beneficial to the average desktop, though 
I'm willing see arguments to the contrary.

Cheers,

Matt.



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list