[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Philip Brown]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>
 ...
> 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   4, is continuing to hold up the larger
> piece.
>...
> 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?

I was hoping this would actually be a timesaver in the long run. or at
least a hassle saver. If we just vote on this, then if it passes, we
dont have to argue so much on language for the larger proposal. We can
use more direct language for it.

Additionally, I actually hope the "visible from /opt/csw/lib" proposal passes.
So I'm not interested in "if it doesnt pass we save time". I *want* it
to pass :)
Also, even if the proposal to make it mandatory does not pass...
people may voluntarily do it.
I'd like to make sure they do it in the way that I see as the most
consistent with other packages, and generally the better way.


> 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?

I dont see it that way. The problem is that there is no "policy" on
the issue at the moment. Only a "de facto" standard of all packages up
until now, that subprefixed binaries stay in their subprefix. Which
everyone up until now has seen as sensible, so there was no need to
make policy on it previously.
So I would like to make the existing behaviour, an official policy standard.