Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

> Yes.  #6 is the mistaken axiom: you are free to include the particular
> dynamic library with your application.  LSB doesn't care if you link
> static or dynamic, you are just not allowed to *require the a priori
> presence of the library on your system*.  Thus, the additional library
> becomes part of the application.

We must disallow static linking with glibc. If you do not do this the LSB
must formally specify the kernel interfaces precisely and in detail and
then square it off with all Linus future plans. That is a no can do.

We can't guarantee the kernel interface is unchanging and syscalls are
not versioned nor is it feasible to do so.

Static linking with glibc or the ld.so loader code has to be 'not lsb'. 

This is even more important for a non Linux OS that wishes to be compliant 
without adding a kernel side glue layer


Alan