Re: Bug#519941: 10.2 Libraries recommends use of /etc/ld.so.conf instead of /etc/ld.so.conf.d

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> * Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> [2009-03-17 17:02]:
>
>> > What is the rational for making the library private in the first place ?
>
>> In the case of the octave package, it is a decision of the upstream
>> authors. I think that one of the reasons is to avoid name clashes between
>> different branches of octave.  For instance, we have curently:
>
>> octave3.0: /usr/lib/octave-3.0.4/liboctave.so
>> octave3.1: /usr/lib/octave-3.1.54/liboctave.so
>
> Hmm, but what I see is this:
>
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2009-03-12 02:10 ./usr/lib/octave-3.0.4/liboctave.so -> liboctave.so.3.0.4
>
> So the real file does have the version in it, and as a result the runtime
> libs should coexist just fine in /usr/lib?
>
> You could continue to ship the .so symlinks in the subdirectories and
> require -L lines when linking, while still avoiding monkeying around with
> ld.so.conf.

Or just put the .so file under /usr/lib in octave3.0-dev and
octave3.1-dev which would conflict with each other like any other
libraries dev packages.

> Cheers,

MfG
        Goswin