[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> 2011/2/3 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
>> Continuing a topic started last month[1], I'd like to put forward a
>> proposal[2] for shared library placement.  Most of our package would
>> not be affected by it; it's most of interest to the maintainers of
>> packages which put shared libraries under custom prefixes.  For
>> details, please refer to the proposal.
>>
>> Maciej
>>
>> [1] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-January/013595.html
>> [2] http://wiki.opencsw.org/proposal:shared-library-placement
>
>
> I object to the proposal as it stands, and ask that the following paragraph,
>
> "Public shared libraries, the ones that other software projects can
> link to, should be put directly under /opt/csw/lib. If a project is
> compiled using a custom prefix and the installer puts shared libraries
> under /opt/csw/foo/lib, shared libraries need to be moved to
> /opt/csw/lib by the maintainer.
> "
>
> be rewritten to be,
>
>
> "Public shared libraries, the ones that other software projects can
> link to, should be put directly under /opt/csw/lib.
> If a project is compiled using a custom prefix and the installer puts
> shared libraries under /opt/csw/foo/lib, [change start here]
> a symlink  /opt/csw/libXX -> /opt/csw/foo/lib/libXXX, should be
> created. Additionally, this symlink should be created IF and ONLY if,
> the SONAME and filename for the library are unique. If on the other
> hand, there is potential for multiple versions of the library to be
> installed at one time, under different prefixes (/opt/csw/foo3,4,5),
> and the SONAME is not unique, then no symlink in /opt/csw/lib should
> be created.
> "
>
> Rational for this has already been given in the above-referenced email thread.

The rationale was re-read and I still don't get it. Can you develop in a
more intelligible way please?
-- 
Peter