Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [66.245.176.36])
	by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40FD782BFC
	for <~alpine/users@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1])
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2222C64968;
	Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw (67.63.200.37.customer.cdi.no [37.200.63.67])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: alpine@tanael.org)
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05BE164962;
	Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:30:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:30:45 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: Henrik Holst <henrik.holst@omnimodular.com>
Cc: Wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz>, ~alpine/users@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: tini-static dynamically linked
Message-ID: <20200330123045.66416f2a@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
In-Reply-To: <CAHO+3xTYhix8Mt0NPA4WoXc2AF4jKTUbi1m45UGKxQvWGrwR1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHO+3xRtDT_kTLs3rpES2UZT0PPD+sS2H_Xi2NNj42BVEcFWgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200327161918.4aedc0ca@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
	<20200329134313.avejs4adn2r7eh35@wolfsden.cz>
	<CAHO+3xTYhix8Mt0NPA4WoXc2AF4jKTUbi1m45UGKxQvWGrwR1g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-alpine-linux-musl)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:56:44 +0200
Henrik Holst <henrik.holst@omnimodular.com> wrote:

> My $0.02 is that tini-staic should be made a real static. The value
> prop for PIE does not outweigh the confusion that this is causing.
> 
> /sbin # ldd tini-static
>         /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 (0x7f6a662d7000)

It is a real (PIE) static, but we may consider fix ldd.

-nc