Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) wrote on 04.06.00 in <[🔎] E12yOCZ-000216-00@the-village.bc.nu>:
> We must disallow static linking with glibc.
Considering the flibc license, and assuming it's all LGPL (last I looked,
there were some GPL parts planned for replacement or license change, I
don't remember the details), then that application would have to come with
linkable object modules. (Or source, of course.)
Sounds to me as if that's significantly more work than dynamically linking
to glibc, so why would anyone want to do it?
> Static linking with glibc or the ld.so loader code has to be 'not lsb'.
Anyway, as long as no other interfaces are defined, then it quite
obviously isn't compliant. An application that directly talks to the
kernel using syscalls isn't LSB, *no matter* how it does it, be it
statically linking glibc, libc5, libc4, hand-coded assembler, what-have-
you. Neither is one manipulating the kernel via /dev/kmem.
MfG Kai
Reply to: