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

Re: Shared libs in non-standard locations

On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 01:28:21PM -0800, Darren wrote:
> It's a good point.  How should we rewrite section 4.2 to say that it
> only refers to public libraries rather than internal libraries?  And
> which parts do and don't?  What about compiled Perl modules, for
> example?  I don't know the answers to these questions.

A better question is: what's a library?

When you're talking about traditional C programs, there's a clear
distinction between executables, shared libraries, and other sorts
of data.  However, that's not so clear when talking about elisp, perl,
or possibly anything else where someone has gone to a lot of work
designing a different sort of infrastructure.  [For example, java has
its CLASSPATH which is independent of normal concepts of executables or
shared libraries.]

The simplest constraint on policy would be to label the shared library
stuff as applicable to "traditional C programs" and leave it up to the
maintainer and bug report filers whether the program has been classified

However, with some time and thought it might be possible to abstract
out some underlying concepts which are more generally applicable.


Reply to: