Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> writes: > The package features quite some libraries, I split them up > into two logical parts, but I'm hesitant where to put them, ie. under > /usr/lib or some directory /usr/lib/mpqc for example. Just for clarification -- we're talking about _shared_ libraries, right? > The problem is with the names, they look quit common, e.g. libcontainer, > libmisc, libref, liboptions... Ugh. While I can't find libraries of with these names already in Debian, sooner or later, someone will have the same stupid idea of naming her library "liboptions". (IIRC some BSDs actually have a standard libmisc.) > 1. Convince upstream to rename them. Yuck, I haven't even contacted them > about this, they follow some strange file-hierachy-policies anyway, but > I could try. Best. May be hard. > 2. Rename them myself to something like libsc_container, etc. This would > be very bad habit at least I guess. Yup. No compatibility with other platforms or a hand-compiled version. > 3. Keep them in /usr/lib and hope that the packages get installed. Ugly. > 4. Dump them in /usr/lib/mpqc or perhaps /usr/lib/sc and /usr/lib/mpqc. > There is a sc-config program remotely similar to gtk-config ('sc-config > --cflags' outputs the flags libsc was compiled with rather than the flags > programs against libsc should be compiled with) which outputs the > library directory when called like 'sc-config --libs'. > > Would the 'sc-config' program be sufficient or would I have to change > /etc/ld.so.conf (something I'd like to avoid)? ld.so.conf, yes, or binaries won't find your library in /usr/lib/<mumble>/. An alternative is to wrap all binaries in scripts that set LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. -rpath is another one, but outlawed in Debian. > Dropping the headers directly under /usr/include would just result in > three directories: math, utils and chemistry, which wouldn't be very > beautiful either. Exactly. Put them in a subdirectory, teaching dependent programs to find the right location for include files is easier than for shared libs. > Oh, and another thing: dpkg-genchanges (I think) complains that the > source packages doesn't have a Section:. Is this a problem? Section is mandatory, see policy appendix C.2.2. It is not clear to me why -- users are never presented with the section of a source package. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature