Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri Feb 11 23:05:06 -0500 2011: Hi Phil,
> excuse me? Maybe my wording or tone was too strong. 'Motion denied' was not meant to carry anything other than my personal disapproval of this. If you took it as having more weight than that, please don't. > But I think we've spend enough time attempting to tap-dance around > an issue it is claimed we will settle with "a separate vote". I'm not opposed to a vote, but I think that we should ratify the original policy proposal _with neutral language_ first. If people don't want special-prefix programs to have libraries visible in /opt/csw/lib, then the location/symlink issue is a non-starter anyway. > And for the record, this is not "the same thing". Maciej's proposal > covers basically ALL packages that have ANY shared libraries. My > proposal addresses only the very small set of packages requiring > subprefixes. Something like 1% of our packages. But in essence, they're both _affecting_ the same set of packages. Libraries being visible in /opt/csw/lib is the default for any non-special package. > Then feel free to vote against it. But dont stand in the way of > letting other people vote on it. I'm not standing in the way of anything. I'm voicing my disapproval that this sub-issue, which everyone (unless I missed a mail) is willing to set aside for now, is continuing to hold up the larger piece. > This is supposed to be a democratic organization. Or are people only > allowed to hold votes on issues that you personally approve? Yes, it is and no, my personal approval is not required. I think it makes sense to let people make this choice...just not until after we know if it's worthwhile or not. If the idea of forcing all libraries to be visible from /opt/csw/lib, even if binaries, etc are in /opt/csw/special/ is voted down, then why waste further time on this? In fact, as I've stated previously, although I have a personal preference on the symlink direction (as do you), it really doesn't matter all that much for anything beyond personal preference. I, personally, would be happy to have Maciej's policy ratified, with neutral language and then not even bother with the symlink/location part at all. This would allow you to do it your way (with symlink from /opt/csw/lib mandatory) while others could place actual libraries in /opt/csw/lib and symlinks from the special prefix. No vote required as you're already free to do it whichever way suits your tastes. But...if you feel so strongly that `du -k` in a special prefix is worthwhile, does it not make sense to deal with this _after_ Maciej's proposal since as things stand now, your policy is already in effect minus the optional symlinks you allowed for? Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
