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

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi James,

Am 28.09.2010 um 11:00 schrieb James Lee:
> On 28/09/10, 01:23:50, Maciej "(Matchek)" Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org 
> >
>> 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.
>
> These packages are only used as dependencies so the naming doesn't  
> have
> to be appealing.  No user should need to directly install a run time.
> They should even be in the list offered to users, only the top level
> names should be, like jpeg, python.

I guess you mean "They should NOT even be...". Very true. This would
solve one other issue: The JRE can be thought of as a runtime, which
we can not deliver right now as it is not "bundled" with another
Java-package that uses it. "Hiding" some packages from pkg-get/pkgutil
would solve this.

>> Another thing is, that we don't need to put every shared library in a
>> separate packages.
>
> Only when the SONAME changes and it's incompatible, like major version
> changes on software, eg, apache2.

I am more thinking of krb5_lib which contains a bundle of related
shared libs, each with its own soname-numbering (however, that one
hasn't changed for a long time, so we may be off good here, but the
basic problem remains).

>> 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.
>
> Yes there is, it may change later.  That's why we are where we are,
> because in the first place there isn't a need.

Right.


Best regards

   -- Dago