[lsb-discuss] appchk - command line processing

[Wichmann, Mats D]

lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org wrote:
>> critical. However, that's simply not the case for the
>> stuff we do, and since it's a library, rather than an
>> application, there isn't a trivial way of checking. We
> 
> You can use constructors for the check when the library
> instantiates but
> I feel your pain
> 
>> own convenience. If that means we have to switch from
>> saying "it's LSB-compliant" to "It is built using LSB tools
>> and would be LSB compliant but for the fact that it uses
>> instruction set that is 12, rather than 17, years old",
>> we'd just do that.
> 
> And even if your customers wanted LSB they wouldn't be running on a
> 486 right ? 
> 
> So I take your point. The current text covers programs sanely but not
> libraries 

I'm not even sure the current text conveys the right
impression,  as we've seen; "If a feature is not
present, then a conforming application shall not use it."
could of course be interpreted as including "and in
fact, we're not even going to try to run because
that feature is missing" but that's not the way I'd
take it at a quick look.  Obviously we'll entertain
discussion on alternative wordings.

Anyway, what could we do on the library side?
Distros look like they mainly handle this at
the package level, that is, at install time.