Re: Packages violating policy 8.2
Ganesan Rajagopal <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>>>> "Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>> I am not sure the sections need clarification, inasmuch as
>> they do not really apply to setools. I might clarify that 8.2 is
>> meant for packages that provide shared libraries for general use by
>> other package developers, and it implies a certain level of assurance
>> that the rug shall not be yanked out from under the aforementioned
>> developers feet.
> I have a package (ipsec-tools) which has a similar situation to setools and
> already has a bug filed for it (See #314981). I considered moving the
> concerned shared libraries into the plugin directory because these "shared
> libraries" were only for the ipsec-tools binaries and not for general
> use. That would need lots of unnecessary changes to the makefiles, probably
> fiddling with the dreaded RPATH etc. So, I think a clarification will be
If the library is only internal then this falls under 10.2 I think,
which is only a SHOULD diretive.
The bug though sounds like Kilian Krause is asking you to make the
library public so he can link against it. Do you ship a shlibs file?
>From the bug you aren't shipping a *.so link for linking which is
correct for an internal library.