[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Ben Walton]

Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri Feb 11 23:05:06 -0500 2011:

Hi Phil,

> excuse me?

Maybe my wording or tone was too strong.  'Motion denied' was not
meant to carry anything other than my personal disapproval of this.
If you took it as having more weight than that, please don't.

> 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".

I'm not opposed to a vote, but I think that we should ratify the
original policy proposal _with neutral language_ first.  If people
don't want special-prefix programs to have libraries visible in
/opt/csw/lib, then the location/symlink issue is a non-starter anyway.

> 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.

But in essence, they're both _affecting_ the same set of packages.
Libraries being visible in /opt/csw/lib is the default for any
non-special package.

> Then feel free to vote against it. But dont stand in the way of
> letting other people vote on it.

I'm not standing in the way of anything.  I'm voicing my disapproval
that this sub-issue, which everyone (unless I missed a mail) is
willing to set aside for now, is continuing to hold up the larger
piece.

> This is supposed to be a democratic organization. Or are people only
> allowed to hold votes on issues that you personally approve?

Yes, it is and no, my personal approval is not required.  I think it
makes sense to let people make this choice...just not until after we
know if it's worthwhile or not.  If the idea of forcing all libraries
to be visible from /opt/csw/lib, even if binaries, etc are in
/opt/csw/special/ is voted down, then why waste further time on this?

In fact, as I've stated previously, although I have a personal
preference on the symlink direction (as do you), it really doesn't
matter all that much for anything beyond personal preference.  I,
personally, would be happy to have Maciej's policy ratified, with
neutral language and then not even bother with the symlink/location
part at all.  This would allow you to do it your way (with symlink
from /opt/csw/lib mandatory) while others could place actual libraries
in /opt/csw/lib and symlinks from the special prefix.  No vote
required as you're already free to do it whichever way suits your
tastes.

But...if you feel so strongly that `du -k` in a special prefix is
worthwhile, does it not make sense to deal with this _after_ Maciej's
proposal since as things stand now, your policy is already in effect
minus the optional symlinks you allowed for?

Thanks
-Ben
--
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302