2011/2/9 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > 2011/2/8 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: >> >> The text doesn't use the "a library or a symlink to it" expression >> each time, because if we started to do this in every case where >> symlinks could be used, the policy would be rather unreadable. >> > > > > > Perhaps we need to take a very different wording style, rather than > attempting to just make small changes. > Something like, > "The library needs to have a presence in /opt/csw/lib" > or "the library needs to be linkable with -L/opt/csw/lib."
This kind of wording sounds good to me. In the specific case of -L, I think it should be rather "Findable at runtime when RPATH is set to /opt/csw/lib or /opt/csw/lib/$ISALIST". The reason is that there's a counterexample: the way we link against libnet, is -L/opt/csw/lib/libnet-new. The libnet.so.1 file is located in /opt/csw/lib (it's a symlink to libnet.so.1.6.0, but it's an implementation detail). The same approach can be used with berkeleydb. The wording "The library needs to have a presence in /opt/csw/lib" sounds the best to me. > Although personally, i think if we just settle the issue of symlinks > now vs later, then the writing will be simpler. I have suggested writing a separate proposal for the issue of symlinks. Symlinks are a powerful tool, and practically any file can be replaced with a symlink to another file located somewhere else. If we want to regulate how symlinks are used, we should have at least a rough policy when the use of symlinks is appropriate. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
