On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 13:05 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 08:21:28AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 +0100, Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > buc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > > > In other words - what I should do with static libraries today?
> > >
> > > So far, I have seen pretty good arguments why static libraries should
> > > *not* be
> > > included by default:
> > > - they introduce security risks
> > > - they add bulk to devel packages
> > > - some features of modern OS/compiler combos only work with shared libs
> > >
> > > I don't think I have seen a good argument why static libraries *should*
> > > be
> > > included *by default* (except maybe "convenience", but convenience to
> > > whom ?).
> > >
> > Daniel Velliard's LSB argument was accepted by Jens as a reason to
> > modify his original proposal. I've never looked into the LSB until
> > today so I'm not certain of the argument but this is what I've found:
> > A strictly conforming application shall not require or use any
> > interface, facility, or implementation-defined extension that is not
> > defined in this document in order to be installed or to execute
> > successfully._
> > _
> > http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/application.html
> > If this isn't the relevant section, Daniel or jens will have to speak
> > up :-)
> yes that was my point basically.
There is no fixated Linux ABI. This renders all attempts to build LSB
compliant packages moot and renders the LSB moot as a whole.
fedora-extras-list mailing list