[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Philip Brown]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> ...
> Let's not derail the current effort any further until the original
> proposal is settled one way or the other...I'm happy to return to this
> after we've completed the first piece.

Trouble is, its a lengthy, wordy proposal, which means that discussion
may still go on for some time.
(not that I particularly WANT it to.. its just that we need to be
exact about policy wording!)
I'm bringing up things one at a time in it,as I see them, because I
think if I spent 2 hours to go over and make one exhaustive list of
everything I saw, in one document, it would be impractical to discuss
it all at the same time.
Remember: I DO actually want this to pass. Its just that the wording
has issues in some places.
So we have a non-deterministic length of time until those issues are
worked out in the longer doc, but the issues for the symlink stuff are
pretty well known, and it is easy to kick off a vote for that and be
done with it now.

AAAnyways, here's some more issues I see with

http://wiki.opencsw.org/proposal:shared-library-placement

It discusses SONAME. But implies that ALL libraries, ALWAYS have a SONAME.
Historically, we have found this is not always the case.
So then there's an issue of "should we *force*" all our libraries to
have a SONAME"?
And what if the upstream that doesnt pay attention to SONAMES, doesnt
bump filenames in future versions?
This unfortunately has potential to spin off yet another sub-issue vote.


Additionally, it mentions "appspecific-config" type scripts, aka
"*-config", but does not mention pkg-config files .

There is also a concern I have about this item:

# Non-ambiguous discrimination between public and private shared libraries

but I think I've reached the functional limit for this email, and only
mention this here as a placeholder so I wont forget it later.