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

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >        <p>
> > -	Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > +	Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> >  	several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> >  	this separation is to be accomplished; rules for files within
> > -	the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries"> instead.
> > +	the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries">
> > +	instead.
> >        </p>
> >  
> >        <sect id="sharedlibs-runtime">
> > I think the "should" there was good.
>         This is something I want to discuss further. Consider the case
>  where there is a package with a set of, say, 20 binaries with a lot
>  of common code, and upstream decided to abstract it out into a shared
>  lib. This is a shred lib used by anyone else, and it is changing
>  rapidly enough that there is the equivalent of a soname change on
>  every upload. There is no interest in supporting older versions, or
>  even having multiple versions of that lib. In this case, either we
>  can make packaging that software hard (since moving the lib out of
>  /usr/lib etc may involve some work), or we allow some packages to
>  include share libs in the package.
>         I don't know which way one should lean, so I decided to go the
>  route of fewer bugs.

If it's not supposed to be used by an other package, it should be moved
to /usr/lib/package/.  If it doesn't contain any other libraries in
/usr/lib, it shouldn't provide a -dev package.  So there really isn't a
need for a seperate lib package either.

Anyway, that's why it says "should" in the first place, and I don't see
why it needs to be changed.


Reply to: