[csw-maintainers] An idea for a shared libraries policy

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

No dia 26 de Setembro de 2010 14:37, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
> I did not see anything in the proposal that mentioned how to handle
> catalog naming; only svr4 package names. that is why it seems so
> clean.
> once you step into that realm things become more messy.
> remember that upstream numbering is sometimes out of sync with the lib
> numbering.
>
> your proposal may "simplify" the number of versions of a library per
> package . however, it will *add* complexity to the naming and package
> building process in other ways.
>
> I'm not neccessarily against it. I'm just pointing out it isn't
> neccessarily the "simple" choice

It's true.  Specifically problematic are bits of software that already
embed a number in the package name, or the soname.  For example
apache2rt package contains libapr-1.so.0.  The corresponding pkgname
would be something along the lines of CSWlibapr10 or CSWlibapr-10, or
other punctuation variants.  These names aren't strikingly pretty, but
I think it's possible to make them consistent.

Another thing is, that we don't need to put every shared library in a
separate packages. This policy would only apply to libraries that
other packages link to.  If a shared library is linked to only by
binaries from the same package, there's no benefit from separating out
the libraries.  These can be found retrospectively by running checkpkg
against the whole catalog.  It is harder at the checkpkg stage, I
think the best bet are heuristics such as "if it is in other packages'
RUNPATH, it can be linked to and should go into a separate package."

The next bit of automation is figuring out automatically, what the
package name should be.  If we can handle that by an algorithm, we'll
sport a consistent set of lib* packages.