[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Philip Brown]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri Feb 11 12:45:30 -0500 2011:
>
>> "Motion for policy:
>>  In cases where it has been determined that it is neccessary for a
>> program to be installed in its own subprefix of /opt/csw, and the
>> program easily supports some equivalent of
>> configure --prefix=/opt/csw/subprefix
>> the program should be compiled as such, and installed as such, with
>> symlinks being made from important places in /opt/csw/(bin,lib) as
>> warranted, into the subprefix.
>
> Nack.
>
> You've spent all this time telling Maciej that his language is too
> explicit because it forces the opposite of your preference and then
> you come out with the same thing but based on your preference instead?
> Motion denied.

excuse me?

For the record, I "spend all this time telling Maciej that his
language is too explicit", because he claimed that *his* goal was to
write up a "neutral" policy document. But it wasnt neutral.
I've spent days now, trying to help Maciej use accurate language in
his proposal, to make the wording match his claimed intent.
Not something I particularly wanted to do; I wanted to vote on the
issue I cared about days ago, but I tried to be patient and help him
out with his first.
So in essence, I've been spending this time helping him, rather than
pushing for the vote to settle the smaller issue that I actually cared
about.
But I think we've spend enough time attempting to tap-dance around an
issue it is claimed we will settle with "a separate vote".

***As another member has just pointed out today****, it seems
fruitless to spend more time debating this sub-issue. It's time to
vote on the location/symlink issue.

And for the record, this is not "the same thing". Maciej's proposal
covers basically ALL packages that have ANY shared libraries.
My proposal addresses only the very small set of packages requiring
subprefixes. Something like 1% of our packages.

> The language specifying location of actual files vs symlinks must be
> neutral or I'll not support it.

Then feel free to vote against it. But dont stand in the way of
letting other people vote on it.
This is supposed to be a democratic organization. Or are people only
allowed to hold votes on issues that you personally approve?