Re: some comments on the 0.9 spec
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 06:04:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> This seems *very* broken to me.
>
> What this implies:
> - if a package requires any 'reasonably standard' component of a distribution,
> but one that isn't specifically stated in the LSB, that means that the
> package must include/statically link all these components.
As far as LSB applications are concerned, the only things that exist
are defined by the LSB and are properly operating if the lsb == 1.0
dependency is satisfied. If this means that we need to pull in more
libraries and/or standards that describe interfaces to have a viable
standard, we need to get started on it.
> - in fact, now that I think about it, if you can't require the particular
> libc you were compiled against, does that mean that all LSB packages must
> be linked statically?
No, the LSB defines the libc interface you're linked against.
Matt
Reply to: