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

[Philip Brown]

On 9/28/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> No dia 28 de Setembro de 2010 10:57, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>
> escreveu:
>>
>> 2. where the name may not neccessarily imply, "hey this is a library".
>
> Can it ever not begin with "lib"?  I thought that when you link using
> the -lfoo flag, the linker will only link with libfoo.so, nothing
> else.  Hence, the file must be named libfoo, and so must the package.

But there are other ways to use a dynamic object, other than linking with -lfoo.
We have a plethora of such beasts.
The related question would be whether it would be justified to ever
create a separate package around them.
Most of them are more the realm of dynamically loaded objects.
An extreme case would be the gimp modules/plugins.

Probably most of those things, arent versioned in the same way as
regular shared libraries, so perhaps it is not an issue. But it still
bears consideration.


>>
>>> 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

What about if there are multiple objects in the package?