Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries
gk4@us.ibm.com writes:
> >Yes, it could. This, obviously, doesn't need to be in the spec,
> >although perhaps in the rationale -- as far as we are concerned, it's
> >just a detail how a certain vendor chooses to build their application.
>
> I had the impression that it was an LSB requirement to statically link a
> library if it is not in the LSB specification; however, that would not be
> practical for most *PL licensed libraries. Here are the axioms that I
> understand, and #7 is causing me problems because of #3.
You could always ship the shared library in question in a private directory
with appropiate LD_LIBRARY_PATH settings.
That's equivalent to static linking from a release point of view (known
version) and satisfies the LGPL (because a user could replace it)
-Andi
Reply to: