On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > <p> > > - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into > > + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into > > several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how > > this separation is to be accomplished; rules for files within > > - the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries"> instead. > > + the shared library packages are in <ref id="libraries"> > > + instead. > > </p> > > > > <sect id="sharedlibs-runtime"> > > > I think the "should" there was good. > > This is something I want to discuss further. Consider the case > where there is a package with a set of, say, 20 binaries with a lot > of common code, and upstream decided to abstract it out into a shared > lib. This is a shred lib used by anyone else, and it is changing > rapidly enough that there is the equivalent of a soname change on > every upload. There is no interest in supporting older versions, or > even having multiple versions of that lib. In this case, either we > can make packaging that software hard (since moving the lib out of > /usr/lib etc may involve some work), or we allow some packages to > include share libs in the package. > > I don't know which way one should lean, so I decided to go the > route of fewer bugs.
If it's not supposed to be used by an other package, it should be moved to /usr/lib/package/. If it doesn't contain any other libraries in /usr/lib, it shouldn't provide a -dev package. So there really isn't a need for a seperate lib package either. Anyway, that's why it says "should" in the first place, and I don't see why it needs to be changed. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]