[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Yes, it could. This, obviously, doesn't need to be in the spec, > >although perhaps in the rationale -- as far as we are concerned, it's > >just a detail how a certain vendor chooses to build their application. > > I had the impression that it was an LSB requirement to statically link a > library if it is not in the LSB specification; however, that would not be > practical for most *PL licensed libraries. Here are the axioms that I > understand, and #7 is causing me problems because of #3.
You could always ship the shared library in question in a private directory with appropiate LD_LIBRARY_PATH settings. That's equivalent to static linking from a release point of view (known version) and satisfies the LGPL (because a user could replace it) -Andi
