Re: dpkg-shlibdeps and private libraries
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
FWIW, I don't agree that this is a fix. In one sense it makes /usr/lib
"cleaner" by moving private libs into a private directory; however:
Well, I'm perfectly willing to adopt your suggestions, but I have to admit
that the authors of this software do not even have an idea about proper
versioning their source tarball so I do not expect a reasonable naming
scheme of the libraries. Guessing from their special purpose that only
serves different binaries inside the package I do not think that these
libraries would have any relevance for any other project - so from a
logical point of view it should go into a private directory.
- Because Debian uses ldconfig, the runtime cost of having additional
libraries in the search path for other apps is negligible
There is no doubt about this.
- By moving the libs out of the default search path, you introduce the
possibility that an unrelated library will have the same name in /usr/lib;
this is a potential source of user confusion, as well as
difficult-to-diagnose corner-case bugs
You are right here (even if I would regard chances for this problem
quite low).
- When multiarch matures (or we have some other reason to move library
directories around...), your package will require specific handling to
update the library paths, rather than a simple change to libdir that will
be handled automatically by the ld.so search path.
I admit that I have no idea about the problems that raise with multiarch
and if you would regard this as an important issue, I'll probably follow
your suggestion. But as I said, I'm afraid about the versioning.
So I think it's better to leave these libraries in /usr/lib instead of using
rpath.
Because Josselin expressed a different opinion I will probably watch this
thread and follow the final agreement.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: