[csw-maintainers] commentary on shared library naming proposal

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

No dia 26 de Dezembro de 2010 20:50, Dagobert Michelsen
<dam at opencsw.org> escreveu:
>> The wiki page currently says:
>>
>> """The policy or recommendation shall refer to libraries which are
>> linkable, meaning that the library is meant to, or can be, linked to.
>> Shared objects in private directories, such as
>> /opt/csw/lib/someproject/foo.so (think Python modules) are not shared
>> libraries which other projects may link to, and therefore there is no
>> benefit in placing them in separate packages."""
>>
>> I think that the kerberos case is handled that this bit of text -
>> these libraries aren't linkable, and splitting them off doesn't win us
>> anything.  Do you have any wiki page modification in mind, to
>> emphasize implications for cases such as Kerberos?
>
> After reading it two more times I guess it makes sense the way it is.
> It may be helpful to make this more clear
>  "The policy or recommendation shall refer to libraries which are
>   linkable, meaning that the library is meant to, or can be, linked to."
> by just removing ", or can be,".

How about removing the "meant to" bit instead?  Even if you don't mean
a library to be linked to, another package still can linked to it.

By the way, can you think of a way of determining which of the 9
kerberos libraries are private and which are public?

> Further I recommend a new check that explicit linkage against
>  /opt/csw/lib/sparcv8plus+vis/libfoo.so.0.2
> is prohibited from any binary/library not being itself sparcv8plus+vis
> for any ISA other than the default ones (sparc/i386/sparcv9/amd64).

That is a whole new branch of functionality I need to implement.
Currently, checkpkg does not look at architectures when determining
dependencies.  This feature is slowly crawling towards the top of my
todo list.