Re: Library vs. libraries
Martin Eberhard Schauer wrote:
> Hello,
> when translating package descriptions again and again I encounter
> a nonconsistent use of "library". Mostly, the short description contains
> library and the long description contains "libraries". Often the package
> list shows a name with different extensions in /usr/lib - a library and
> a number of symbolic links. For me it's just a library with multiple names.
>
> A short example:
>
> # http://packages.debian.org/sid/i386/libgck0/filelist
> # Filelist of package libgck0 in sid of architecture i386
> # /usr/lib/libgck.so.0
> # /usr/lib/libgck.so.0.0.0
Yes; libgck.so.0 is just a symlink to libgck.so.0.0.0, so it's hard to
see a justification for talking about "libraries" here.
A package which really does contain multiple .so files would be a
different question - see for instance the package description for
libglib2.0-0: from a packaging point of view it's a collection of
shared libraries, but from a development point of view it all forms
one big library of C routines.
[...]
> Description: Glib wrapper library for PKCS#11 - runtime
> GCK is a wrapper based on GLib implementing the PKCS#11 (Cryptoki)
> interface.
> .
> This package contains the shared libraries needed to run programs
> built against the GCK library.
>
> ###########################################################
>
> I'm too pedantic? I have not noticed anything? Or is it a common mistake?
I can imagine it might be defensible in some cases to use "libraries"
to cover the multiple "library interfaces" that a package provides,
but that excuse doesn't work for libgck0, with that concrete reference
to "contains the shared libraries".
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: