openssh static build - mission impossible?

[Mr Dash Four]

> Normally when cross-compiling for a specific target, you also have a
> specific toolchain for that target, as well as have built all system
> libraries you want for that target which your package depends on.
>   
Except in cases where the compiler is multilib, in which case that isn't 
really needed.

> It's clear now that you are using the unusual approach of trying to
> reuse Fedora binaries for OpenSSH dependencies, in order to build
> an OpenSSH binary targeted for a very different environment (bionic)
> than Fedora.
Nope! I am trying to build a static openssh to run on armv6l - the 
"environment", whether bionic, OpenWRT or something else - is completely 
irrelevant to me and this is how it should be with monolithic 
statically-build binaries.

>  It's no surprise that this blows up in your face.
>
> If you had been clear about your method you could have gotten the
> following advice much sooner. I assumed you had taken the more
> thorough approach, my bad.
>   
What advice?! Not from you anyway - you have posted 4 times in this 
thread without giving *any* sort of advice whatsoever - just pontificating.

> You'll have much better success if you yourself build the
> dependencies for OpenSSH. This is the usual way to build a
> distribution.
That is already done. As I already pointed out - the only exception 
being is that I did not know how bloated my Fedora-supplied libc would 
be, so that it introduces undesired NSS dependencies which I need to get 
rid of in order to succeed.

>  You only want to build OpenSSH and not a distribution,
> but since you want the OpenSSH binary in a special way you
> effectively must also build a small distribution (meaning in this
> case a set of libraries) which allows building OpenSSH the way you
> want.
I don't consider the way I build openssh (or any other package or binary 
for that matter) to be "special" - I would have succeeded if it wasn't 
for the fact that Fedora decided to ditch the entire crypto stack, 
implement Mozilla's NSS *and* link it with the standard libc library.

> That's not an excellent comment. You're overlooking the possibility
> that I have given good advice which you misunderstood.
Which is what, exactly? Please enlighten me, because I fail to see what 
was the "advice" you have given me - going by what you've posted so far, 
I could see none whatsoever.

>  I think you
> may also overlook the right to free speech.
>   
You are not the one to lecture me about free speech - who the hell do 
you think you are?!

> But I digress. If you refuse to build your own libcrypto then you
> really have no way to accomplish your goal;
Where did I "refuse" to build my own crypto - are you to continue making 
things up as you go along?