Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:36:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> + to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
> >> + should be installed in the subdirectories of the
> Richard> ^^^
> Richard> I would drop that "the", to make clear that packages can create
> Richard> their own subdirectory for the plugins.
> Umm. Perhaps one3 should specify ``the subdirectories of
> "/usr/lib/<package>/: directory''?
Wouldn't that imply that one has to make /usr/lib/<package>/<something>/
subdirectory, or several of them?
I agree with what Richard said, just drop the "the".
> Richard> Anyway, do you really mean _all_ the rules? I would expect
> Richard> that they should still be compiled with -fPIC, for the same
> Richard> reasons as shared libraries -- memory pages with relocatable
> Richard> code can otherwise not be shared between processes. (Please
> Richard> correct me if plugins are not normally relocatable.)
> Richard> Also, stripping with --strip-unneeded still seems like a good idea.
> Hmm. I assumed that since these were internal details of the
> package, one need not make policy about them, since internal detail
> should be left to the maintainers to implement. How about adding what
> you said above as an informative footnote? That way, every maintainer
> that reads policy shall no it is a good idea, and why, but policy
> shall not intrude into internal matters of the package.
> I definitely agree that what you say is a darned good idea,
> but I am not convinced that we need policy about that.
I think we should amend the proposal with a note that the plugins aren't
exempt from stripping -- this is my oversight. Also, that is a "should"
rule, so if there are exceptions, this won't cause serious bugs. I'm don't
know about -fPIC, though, that is a "must" rule. A footnote would be fine,
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification