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

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

Am 28.09.2010 um 11:05 schrieb Dagobert Michelsen:
> 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.

And Oracle Instantclient. Making packages not directly downlable
should be seriously considered as it would make using packages
relying on Java and the Oracle client *a lot* easier. Apart from
that the packages are essentially ready for release.


Best regards

   -- Dago