On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 06:04:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > This seems *very* broken to me. > > 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. > - 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. Matt
