[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: some comments on the 0.9 spec

Matt Wilson (msw@redhat.com) said: 
> > 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.

So every single possible library that it would need to be pulled into
the LSB, or linked statically? Or does this automatically exclude any
LSB app linking against KDE or Gnome, for instance?

> > - 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.

Each minor revision of libc requires a new LSB standard? Ick.

>                         Chapter 9. Program Interpreter
>   The LSB specifies the Program Interpreter to be
>     * /lib/ld-lsb.so.1                                                

Aside from making more pain for application developers, this
breaks under environments that support multpiple ABIs. (ia64,
for instance.)


Reply to: