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

Re: Unversioned .so file in /usr/lib vs dh_makeshlibs vs postinst-must-call-ldconfig



> > How to handle that case, if not putting private library as-is to
> > /usr/lib ?
> >
> > Move it to /usr/lib/packagename, and use rpath on binaries? debian
> > tries to avoid rpath AFAIK ...
>
> Just because we hunt down stupid rpath cases doesn’t mean there aren’t
> valid uses for it. And this is precisely the case for which rpath is
> intended.

Moving package-private shared libraries outside of /usr/lib is some amount 
of additional work that maintainer has to do.

I would like to understand the status of this "package-private libraries 
vs /usr/lib" thing. I'm unable to find explicit allow or deny of 
installation of package-private libraries into /usr/lib in the current 
policy text, in 8.1 or anywhere else.

If it is a requirement, then perhaps it should be clearly written in the 
policy, reasoning should be explained, and we all should follow that.

If it is not a requirement, then we could find better things to spend time 
on, than introducing and maintaining patches to move package-private libs 
out of /usr/lib, and then dealing with incompatibilities with upstream 
code or other distros or whatever that such a move may introduce.

After all, what's wrong with package-private libs in /usr/lib?

Nikita

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: