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

Re: Including .so symlinks in non-dev package: policy violation?

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 17:00 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:34 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > The plugin .so's are not designed to be accessed directly. The purpose
> > is to access them through libsynfig, which is properly versioned. In a
> > sense, they differ from shared libraries ("libraries that are to be
> > shared between applications").
> > 
> > Is it ok to include the unversioned symlinks for the plugin .so's in the
> > non-dev package (libsynfig0)?
> I forgot to mention that the plugins are shipped
> in /usr/lib/synfig/modules -- so the whole thing looks very much like
> the run-time support programs in policy 8.2, except in this case, the
> artifacts are shared objects, not executables.

In this case, the libraries don't need to be versioned at all, assuming
they're entirely private to synfig. Similar cases (e.g. XMMS plugins,
Python extensions) also do not have versioned names.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

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

Reply to: