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

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

No dia 28 de Setembro de 2010 09:54, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
> Side comment: this separation of shared lib binaries into separate
> packages is entirely possible to do right now. I think the only new
> "policy" we need to come up with here, is a naming policy, for when
> the number in the library's SONAME , does not clearly match up with
> the regular software version number.

Yes, it's this, and that two different SONAMEs don't go into a single package.

> I'm guessing that debian already has a naming policy for this sort of
> thing, since I vaguely recall seeing some naming that I considered
> really ugly at the time.
> So interested parties should probably do a little research on other
> distros, to avoid needlessly introducing "yet another naming scheme"
> if there is an existing accepted one already out there.

Yes, I support that.  I did a quick search and found that Debian policy says:

"The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose name
changes whenever the SONAME of the shared library changes. (...)
Normally, the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should be
placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion is the
version number in the SONAME of the shared library."

http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-runtime

I could write a checkpkg test: if there's a shared in /opt/csw/lib
(including ISA subdirectories), and has a SONAME, the pkgname must
conform to:

CSWlibrarynamesonameversion or CSWlibraryname-sonameversion

...and the catalogname must conform to:

librarynamesonameversion or libraryname_sonameversion

If it's not under /opt/csw/lib, or is not a binary, or not a shared
library, or doesn't have a soname, then the rule doesn't apply.
Additional prefixes make it slightly harder; including the ISA
subdirs, something like /opt/csw(/[a-z]+)?/lib(/[a-z0-9+]+)? would
need to be used for matching.

How does that sound?