Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:13:41PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> > > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > > future in order to properly solve this issue.
> >
> > Geez, again? Basically a .so files that is not in /lib, /usr/lib,
> > /usr/X11R6/lib or another directory listed in /etc/ld.so.conf is not
> > a library (the dynamic linker can't find it anyway then) .
>
> Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> lintian, though it is likely far too old to automatically apply.
Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
> --- policy.txt Thu Apr 26 13:56:29 2001
> +++ so-policy.txt Thu Apr 26 14:04:10 2001
> @@ -2313,6 +2313,13 @@
> 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 shared libraries. If
> + the plugin files are not installed in the default search path of
> + `ld.so' (/lib, /usr/lib), or in common locations specified in
> + `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib), then the package is not
> + required to comply with the paragraph requiring symbolic links.
> +
They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too.
See my attempt in #66023...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: