On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:58 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > For the record, I checked, and Red Hat 9's lsb-1.3 package > simply made ld-lsb.so.1 a symlink to ld-linux.so.2,
I'm pretty sure all distros do that. I've never heard of any LSB compliant distro using a custom linker to override upstream choices, even though it's theoretically possible. I suspect most distro developers just don't care - if they cared about stability they would not have shipped NPTL as the default at all, for any app. On a desktop system at any rate there's little to no benefit for existing software. The performance improvements are only really an issue for servers. > so that version of their lsb environment does seem to use > NPTL. Probably they figured they'd do something fancier > if they got any complaints, and since nobody was shipping > LSB-1.3 apps, they never had to. There's that catch-22 again. No LSB apps == LSB has no influence. > It'll be interesting to see if LSB-2.0 apps actually get > deployed... having an argument about hypothetical pros and > cons is a bit sterile. Well, they aren't really hypothetical. The cons of todays LSB is I believe why there aren't any LSB apps out there today. I hope it goes somewhere but I'm not holding my breath, not any more.