No dia 26 de Dezembro de 2010 20:50, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> escreveu: >> The wiki page currently says: >> >> """The policy or recommendation shall refer to libraries which are >> linkable, meaning that the library is meant to, or can be, linked to. >> Shared objects in private directories, such as >> /opt/csw/lib/someproject/foo.so (think Python modules) are not shared >> libraries which other projects may link to, and therefore there is no >> benefit in placing them in separate packages.""" >> >> I think that the kerberos case is handled that this bit of text - >> these libraries aren't linkable, and splitting them off doesn't win us >> anything. Do you have any wiki page modification in mind, to >> emphasize implications for cases such as Kerberos? > > After reading it two more times I guess it makes sense the way it is. > It may be helpful to make this more clear > "The policy or recommendation shall refer to libraries which are > linkable, meaning that the library is meant to, or can be, linked to." > by just removing ", or can be,".
How about removing the "meant to" bit instead? Even if you don't mean a library to be linked to, another package still can linked to it. By the way, can you think of a way of determining which of the 9 kerberos libraries are private and which are public? > Further I recommend a new check that explicit linkage against > /opt/csw/lib/sparcv8plus+vis/libfoo.so.0.2 > is prohibited from any binary/library not being itself sparcv8plus+vis > for any ISA other than the default ones (sparc/i386/sparcv9/amd64). That is a whole new branch of functionality I need to implement. Currently, checkpkg does not look at architectures when determining dependencies. This feature is slowly crawling towards the top of my todo list. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
