Re: dynamic versus statically linked libraries
> Anyway, as long as no other interfaces are defined, then it quite
> obviously isn't compliant. An application that directly talks to the
> kernel using syscalls isn't LSB, *no matter* how it does it, be it
> statically linking glibc, libc5, libc4, hand-coded assembler, what-have-
> you. Neither is one manipulating the kernel via /dev/kmem.
Unless explicitly stated about syscalls and dynamic glibc its probably not
obvious to many apps vendors
Reply to: