Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable

On 29 Feb., 17:10, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
llothar <llot...@xxxxxx> writes:
On 29 Feb., 12:54, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
with the environment used to develop some software. This can easily be
achieved by picking some set of 'supported' platforms and documenting
the compatibility requirements, so that people intending to use the
software on a non-supported platform can create such a compatible
environment if they so desire.

Well this is all what LSB is about.

No. The LSB would be one of the many possibly supported platforms.

I have some customers who are doing what you propose on MacOSX.
They purchased parallels emulator and run the windows version
on there Macs.

That was not what I proposed. If I want to run a certain software on
some OS with some Linux-kernel, I can install any version of any (open
source) library the software may need on this system and if this isn't
enough, I could even change it as required, if I think that it would

No i'm talking about a commercial Desktop Application in the 50-100 US
$
range like most desktop software is now. Nobody want ever change
anything to get it going.

be worth the effort. Eg my employer runs binary-only Checkpoint
software on CentOS with a small kernel modification to make it work.

I remember this from ultra expensive CAD software etc.
I don't think that anybody needs a standard for this kind of software
because
the customer normally choose the certified OS for there software and
not the other way round. This is Workstation world and just a very
small
part of Desktop world.
.