Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > <p>
> > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into
> > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into
> > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how
> > this separation is to be accomplished; rules for files within
> > - the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries"> instead.
> > + the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries">
> > + instead.
> > </p>
> > <sect id="sharedlibs-runtime">
> > I think the "should" there was good.
> This is something I want to discuss further. Consider the case
> where there is a package with a set of, say, 20 binaries with a lot
> of common code, and upstream decided to abstract it out into a shared
> lib. This is a shred lib used by anyone else, and it is changing
> rapidly enough that there is the equivalent of a soname change on
> every upload. There is no interest in supporting older versions, or
> even having multiple versions of that lib. In this case, either we
> can make packaging that software hard (since moving the lib out of
> /usr/lib etc may involve some work), or we allow some packages to
> include share libs in the package.
> I don't know which way one should lean, so I decided to go the
> route of fewer bugs.
If it's not supposed to be used by an other package, it should be moved
to /usr/lib/package/. If it doesn't contain any other libraries in
/usr/lib, it shouldn't provide a -dev package. So there really isn't a
need for a seperate lib package either.
Anyway, that's why it says "should" in the first place, and I don't see
why it needs to be changed.