Re: some comments on the 0.9 spec
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:24:56PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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?
Or the application would have to provide a copy of the library for
itself, in its own libdir. Yes, it sucks. I would go for using DSOs
and not static linking, of course - especially on LGPLed apps.
> > > - 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.
No, luckily libc has symbol versioning so it will continue to
implement the spec as defined by the LSB. Application developers will
have to take measures to ensure that they are not using
interfaces/symbols from newer versions of glibc than what is defined
by the LSB, though.
> > 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.)
How?
Matt
Reply to: