[csw-maintainers] commentary on shared library naming proposal

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Mon Dec 27 12:25:30 CET 2010


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.


More information about the maintainers mailing list