[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Maciej Bliziński]

2011/2/16 Jonathan Craig <jcraig at opencsw.org>:
> I'm okay with discussing and if time pressures demand we can sever the
> issue into its own space.

I've moved the issue of old libraries to a separate document[1].  It
needs to be expanded to include the sparcv9 subdirectories.

> This is where ubuntu uses a "conflicts with" dependency and only
> allows one development option to be installed at a time thereby
> sidestepping the issue of file conflict.  Could we not also create a
> "conflicts with" dependency?
>
>> The issue surfaced not so long ago, so there still is a good deal of
>> conflicting files in the catalog[1].
>>
>> If we encounter a case of colliding files, we need to either rename
>> one or both files, or use alternatives.
>>
>
> Seems like an argument for having a "conflicts with" dependency.

We currently have a non-codified, but enforced policy that no two
packages can ship a non-directory file with the same path.  AFAIK,
release manager scripts are current written in such a way that they
disallow registration of such package in the database.

>> Going back to the library placement proposal - if the linking against
>> old libraries section is going to grow more, it should be taken out to
>> a separate document.  The proposal can simply mention that it does not
>> prevent older shared libraries from being linked to.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> Its a chicken and egg situation.  Saying that shared libraries must be
> available in the global /opt/csw/lib directory means that all of these
> other things will need to be answered.  Choices have impact, but that
> shouldn't turn us from facing them.  I personally don't look at
> policies as being written in stone and therefore require exhaustive
> research to fully specify them the first time.  Policy simply directs
> our actions in achieving a given outcome.  As our understanding of the
> desired outcome develops, so must our policy.  Lets capture our
> perception of what the desired outcome is and then we can kraft the
> policies over time to see they are achieved.

Yes, we seem to be on the same page.  The proposal allows exceptions,
if they're necessary.  When we tackle the old libraries issue, and we
discover that the shared library placement policy needs to be amended,
we'll do that.  Likely, in the same patch to the opencsw-policy
package.

I've updated the document:
http://wiki.opencsw.org/proposal:shared-library-placement

Maciej

[1] http://wiki.opencsw.org/shared-libraries#toc0