[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages violating policy 8.2

Al Stone <ahs3@fc.hp.com> writes:

>> If the library is only used for binary packages from the same source
>> [which always get updated together] then why not put it in
>> /usr/lib/package/ and make it not public?
> This could be done for the qprof package.  I'm not sure that qualifies
> as an RC bug, though.  Policy 8.2 never mentions that as a possibility;
> it is perhaps implicit in the description, but not very obvious.
>> I believe that if you have a shared object in (/usr)/lib then policy
>> 8.2 _always_ applies. No excuses. Policy 8.2 is also a requirement for
>> multiarch. For multiarch this will not only give conflicts between
>> different soversions of a library but also between different
>> architectures of a library.
> I can see how you came to that belief; having read 8.2 several
> times before this, that was not an obvious conclusion to me.  
> Do you have any suggestions for ways to make the policy section 
> clearer?  I haven't thought this through enough yet to make a
> suggestion for improvement...

Somewhere else in this thread I quoted Policy 10.2. After reading them
both a couple of times I think 10.2 applies for the case here and
other binary packages that also have a *.so.* file. That reduces the
problem to a SHOULD directive. So I think I have to retract my

I can indeed suggest an improvement if 10.2 is ment for these
cases. 8.2 should have a reference to 10.2 noting the exemption. Do 2
DDs second that?


Reply to: