[I forgot to add the policy tag in the subject line of the original post. Apologies. --Maciej]
2011/2/4 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > 2011/2/4 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: >> ... >> It does add some complexity, I agree. But it does it for a good >> reason: we want to avoid other projects accidentally linking to a >> library which was thought to be private, ... > > In other words, to reserve namespace of shared libraries. > > I agree that this is a good thing, and that we should do "something" for it. > However, putting symlinks in /opt/csw/lib to a prefixed library's > location, is a perfectly valid 'something' for this purpose. Yes, I agree that using symlink can be a valid solution. However, using symlinks vs regular files is a tangential issue. Perhaps we should not include anything about files vs symlinks in the proposal. This can be covered by a separate proposal. If you care about this, would you like to put forward a proposal regarding the use of symlinks? Let's continue the shared library placement discussion. How about the following: --------------------8<--------------------- +++ Public shared libraries Public shared libraries, the ones that other software projects can link to, should be kept in /opt/csw/lib. 64-bit libraries should be kept under /opt/csw/lib/amd64 and /opt/csw/lib/sparcv9 on their respective platforms. --------------------8<--------------------- This phrasing is simple, and does not say anything about file types. Does it sound better? Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
