[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On 2/3/11, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We need to have the library visible in both locations, to avoid
>>> confusion to both users, and potential auto-detect scripts. Ones that
>>> tend to have single flags like --use-libfoo=/prefix, rather than 3
>>> separate flags for --usr-libfoo-lib, --use-libfoo-include,
>>> --use-libfoo-iforgettheotherthing
>>
>> I was quite opposed to this specific directories for different
>> versions but lived with its inconveniences. Now that we have
>> alternatives, it's really a PITA.
>>
>> Anyhow, what I wish is to not make it mandatory to separate different
>> versions of the same project, which make sense to be installed
>> simultaneously, in different directories but to be able to use
>> alternatives and shared objects in /opt/csw/lib as a accepted solution.
>
> well, we may have different reasons for it, but seems like in that
> case, we both agree on something:
>
> Forcing the "actual file", rather than a symlink, into /opt/csw/lib,
> for *all* cases, is bad. Symlinks are more appropriate in some cases.
>
> Whether that symlink is done via "alternatives" or some other means,
> is not an immediate issue to me. The immediate concern to me is that
> the proposal as written, prohibits that sort of thing, and so needs to
> be changed.

Indeed, we cannot have a strict, mandatory policy on this, rather a
recommendation which is still a policy. Consequently, your proposition
of modification cannot be as strong as you proposed, i.e., imposing the
symbolic links instead of the real files.

As for using alternatives for shared libraries, I don't know what to
think. I thought that alternatives are more appropriate to executables
but I must confess that thoroughly exploring alternatives is one of my
objectives.

-- 
Peter