Dynamic linking is in my opinion not that useful anymore in this day and age where the few MB of RAM and disk space you save is not worth the hassle. The amount of dynamic linking issues I encountered on GNU/Linux was insane (fuck libstdc++). Not even glibc manages to keep forward compatibility working (breaking memcpy, breaking DT_HASH, ...)!
It's much better to just statically link your binaries (unfortunately many programs on GNU/Linux do not support this).
Before the security guys come out the woods: No you don't need to rebuilt all programs linked against your dynamic library of choice. Just keep the object files around and relink them against the updated version of the static libraries. If now package manager just allowed differential binary updates (actually why is this trivial optimization not a common thing?) the overhead in terms of download size is not that of a big deal too.
The value you gain is immense: binaries just work (modulo linux ABI issues but they are doing quite a good job at keeping this interface stable)
It's much better to just statically link your binaries (unfortunately many programs on GNU/Linux do not support this).
Before the security guys come out the woods: No you don't need to rebuilt all programs linked against your dynamic library of choice. Just keep the object files around and relink them against the updated version of the static libraries. If now package manager just allowed differential binary updates (actually why is this trivial optimization not a common thing?) the overhead in terms of download size is not that of a big deal too.
The value you gain is immense: binaries just work (modulo linux ABI issues but they are doing quite a good job at keeping this interface stable)