Stuart Anderson writes... > Technically, if rsh isn't a LSB specified command, then it shouldn't be in > SI, and an application shouldn't be calling out to it.
Forgive my ignorance, I still don't have everything straight in my head(well at least the LSB stuff). Is a "lsb compliant application" allowed to use things outside of the LSB? It seems like it would be rather limiting if it can't. So assuming it can, - If the dependency is a library, is it expected to link statically? I guess there's no way of know that library is there or declaring a dependency so I would assume you have to go static. - If the dependency is a command(like rsh in this case) then what? > Possibly, we need to > add rsh (and ssh), but it should be added to the spec first. I personally am opposed to adding rsh, but I guess the argument could be made that the client half is probably "standard". I don't know how many distributions install rsh-server by default though. ssh has crypto legal problems. While I'd love to see it in lsb I think it would be the first crypto thing and would have to fight whatever battles that means. I think its now possible(at least this week, who knows with these things) and could happen though. -- Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab [EMAIL PROTECTED] HP Linux Systems Operation
