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: