[lsb-discuss] lsb dynamic linker name for LSB 4.0

[Wichmann, Mats D]

> Worse yet, one could imagine an application which was built using the
> LSB 4.0 build tools, but if it just so happened that the application
> only used interfaces that were allowed by LSB 3.2, would have worked
> on an LSB 3.2 distribution --- EXCEPT THAT LSB 4.0 required a
> different soname.  In other words, for no good reason.  That alone
> seems to be the best arguement for ruling out an soname bump.

we can certainly document a procedure for making sure that
doesn't happen, in general how to get to "built for the lowest
usable LSB version" should be written up whether or not we
do anything with the linker name.