Re: real LSB compliance
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:28:31PM +1000, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > > [1] joey@silk:~/tmp>./usr/bin/lsblibchk
> > > ./usr/bin/lsblibchk 1.0.0
> > > Unable to find library ld-lsb.so.1
> >
> > Some LSB thing I assume :) Everyone in the real world calls it either
> > ld.so.1 or ld-linux.so.2 depending on their platform (roughly, maybe a
> > few other names).
>
> LSB compliant apps will need to link against /lib/ld-lsb.so.1. This
> doesn't mean that Debian distributed packages have to do this but the
> loader will have to be available.
[trying not to start an argument, I'm sure this has been discussed at
length, but...]
What on earth is this supposed to accomplish? As far as I know, every
reasonably current Linux distribution for any particular architecture
agrees on the name of the dynamic linker. Yes, it's different per
platform - because it was necessary to bump the version after
particular mistakes or ABI improvements on some particular
architecture. But this isn't a rabid compatibility issue, and as
things stand no one ever needs to twiddle that, and the system compiler
will always be expected (perfectly reasonably) to get it right. Why
introduce a gratuitous complication in the compilation of any
LSB-compliant program, and a gratuitous dependency on a currently
nonstandard linker when the existing one seems entirely adequate?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: