On 9/28/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I support that. I did a quick search and found that Debian policy > says: > > "The run-time shared library must be placed in a package whose name > changes whenever the SONAME of the shared library changes. (...) > Normally, the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should be > placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion is the > version number in the SONAME of the shared library." > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-runtime
Hmm. Well, it's a good start. There are two unmentioned issues that come to my mind: 1. where the name is just Really Stupid :) 2. where the name may not neccessarily imply, "hey this is a library". For those cases, I'm a little leery of going with a hard line "name must exactly match SONAME" policy. I think that having that as a guideline would be okay though. > I could write a checkpkg test: if there's a shared in /opt/csw/lib > (including ISA subdirectories), and has a SONAME, the pkgname must > conform to: > > CSWlibrarynamesonameversion or CSWlibraryname-sonameversion > See above. I dont think it should be put as a blocking checkpkg test. Also, theres the issue that this is an OPTIONAL split-out. We were talking about doing this for *some* shared libs, but not all. But just to be nitpicky... > If it's not under /opt/csw/lib, or is not a binary, or not a shared > library, or doesn't have a soname, then the rule doesn't apply. If it doesnt have a soname, then things default to using the filename, I believe. so we'd still need to have the package name change if the filename changed. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
