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

Bug#636383: debian-policy: 10.2 and others: private libraries may also be multi-arch-ified



Le Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 10:20:41AM +0000, Simon McVittie a écrit :
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 at 15:17:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > We could resolve this by either disallowing to use
> > <file>/usr/lib/<var>triplet</var></file>, or by explaining that the
> > subdirectory must be private to the package or to a set of collaborating
> > packages, as the non-public libraries themselves.
> 
> I think private libraries in [/usr[/local]]/lib/TRIPLET/subdir should
> certainly be allowed.

Indeed.

How about the attached patch ?  Do you think it is clear enough that
<file>/usr/lib/<var>triplet</var></file> is not allowed ?

Have a nice Sunday,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
>From f7b98ecfa36e26c22ed2d1bccd74cf0dc1761f13 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 16:04:17 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Disallow non-public libraries in /usr/lib/triplet, but not
 its subdirectories.

Closes: #636383
---
 policy.sgml |    5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index b8db0ab..d0baa1b 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -7697,8 +7697,9 @@ strip --strip-unneeded <var>your-lib</var>
 	  Shared object files (often <file>.so</file> files) that are not
 	  public libraries, that is, they are not meant to be linked
 	  to by third party executables (binaries of other packages),
-	  should be installed in subdirectories of the
-	  <file>/usr/lib</file> directory.  Such files are exempt from the
+	  should be installed in subdirectories of the <file>/usr/lib</file>
+	  or <file>/usr/lib/<var>triplet</var></file> directories (see
+	  <ref id="fhs"> for a definition).  Such files are exempt from the
 	  rules that govern ordinary shared libraries, except that
 	  they must not be installed executable and should be
 	  stripped.<footnote>
-- 
1.7.7.3


Reply to: