Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries

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

> 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.

Unless explicitly stated about syscalls and dynamic glibc its probably not
obvious to many apps vendors