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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.

(missed this mail in my enormous inbox, sorry :)

On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:34:43PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too.
> > 
> > See my attempt in #66023...
> Aye, too true. It may be easier for the proposal to not decide the paths
> involved -- it should be sufficient to say which paths are *not*
> allowed.

Where else except in subdirs of /usr/lib should the 

> --- policy.txt	Thu Apr 26 19:31:26 2001
> +++ so-policy.txt	Thu Apr 26 19:57:17 2001
> @@ -2313,6 +2313,15 @@
>       library links point to them, just before `dpkg' continues the
>       installation and removes the links!
> +     It is the case that some packages supply plugins intended for
> +     internal use only and these plugins are often technically shared
> +     libraries.

Here you do the same thing in making stuff overly specific, as I did :)
Someone might not want to call these libs plugins. Someone might want to
define "internal use" diffently (two or more packages using them).

> If the plugin files are not installed in the default
> +     search path of `ld.so' (currently /lib, /usr/lib), or in common
> +     locations specified in `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib),
> +     then the package's plugins are not required to comply with the
> +     paragraph requiring symbolic links nor the `shlibs' sections
> +     following.

And any modification of ld.so.conf isn't described, but it happened (happens)
`in the wild', like in xaw3d packages.

I'd prefer if people seconded the diff in #66023 :) and then we can refine
that stuff further if necessary.

Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Reply to: