Should binary-only SW be written against glibc ?
bs at suse.de
Fri Aug 28 07:17:28 PDT 1998
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Davide Bolcioni wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> first linux list with no new messages for one day, so I thought I'd
> submit one. I am not an active Linux developer, but have been observing
> for some time (administering part time also). The question is in the
> subject: maybe developers wishing to distribute binary-only applications
> should be encouraged to write against a library whose evolution is not
> as fast as the evolution of glibc.
There was a decission in lsb a while ago, but since lsb is reseted, it has
to be discussed again.
The plans were to make a libc with a special so name (e.g.
libc.lsb.1.). This libc.lsb was meant to be a special glibc version.
So distribution vendors don't have to stay with the library for years, but
software from ISV can live longer than one summer :)
I still believe, this should be done this way.
My tip for this evening: Kuti, Fela: Afrobeat
Burchard Steinbild, S.u.S.E. GmbH, Gebhardtstr. 2, 90762 Fuerth, Germany
Tel: +49-911-74053-0, Fax: +49-911-7417755, Email: bs at suse.de
More information about the lsb-discuss