debian-policy´Ô ¾È³çÇϼ¼¿ä?
¢Ä ¿À´ÃÀÇ À¯¸Ó ¢Å ¡á°ú½Ã¿åA girl got an engagement ring, and would seize every opportunity for calling attention to it. In a group with girl friends no one noticed it. Finally when herfriends were sitting around talking, she got up suddenly and said, "It's awfully hot in here. I think I'll take my ring off." ¡Þseize every opportunity for ~ ing : ±âȸ¸¸ ÀÖÀ¸¸é ~ ÇÏ´Ù.¡Þcall attention to : ~ ¿¡ ÁÖÀǸ¦ ȯ±â½ÃÅ°´Ù. ¡Þawfully : very ¾àÈ¥¹ÝÁö¸¦ ¹ÞÀº ¾Æ°¡¾¾´Â ±âȸ¸¸ ÀÖÀ¸¸é »ç¶÷µé¿¡°Ô ±× ¹ÝÁö¸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖ·Á°í µé¾ú´Ù ÇѹøÀº ¿©ÀÚÄ£±¸µé°ú ¾î¿ï·È´Âµ¥ ¾Æ¹«µµ ±× ¹ÝÁö¸¦ ´«¿©°Ü ºÁÁÖÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù¸¶Ä§³» ¾Æ°¡¾¾´Â ´Ùµé µÑ·¯¾É¾Æ À̾߱⸦ ³ª´©°í ÀÖ´Â ÆÇ¿¡ ¹ú¶± ÀÏ¾î¼¸é¼ ¸»Çß´Ù."¾îÈÞ, ´õ¿ö¼ ¸ø °ßµð°Ú³×. ³ª ¹ÝÁö¸¦ »©¾ß ÇÒ±îºÁ!" ¢Ä ¿À´ÃÀÇ ¿µ¾î ÇѸ¶µð ¢Å ¢Ã °¨»çÀÇ ¸»À» ÇÒ ¶§¿Ü±¹ÀεéÀº ³²¿¡°Ô ¾ÆÁÖ ÀÛÀº µµ¿òÀ» ¹Þ¾Æµµ "Thank you.(°¨»çÇÕ´Ï´Ù.)"¶ó°í ¸»ÇØ¿ä. ÀÌ°ÍÀº ¾î·ÈÀ» ¶§ºÎÅÍ ±×·± ±³À°À» ¹ÞÀ¸¸é¼ ÀÚ¶ó ¿Ô±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ¸ö¿¡ º£¾î ÀÖ¾î »ó´ë¹æÀÇ »ç¼ÒÇÑ µµ¿òÀ̳ª Ä£Àý¿¡µµ "Thank you."¶ó°í ¸»ÇÏ´Â ½À°üÀ» °®°Ô µÈ°Å °°¾Æ¿ä. ¹°·Ð, ¿ì¸®µµ ¸¶Âù°¡ÁöÁö¸¸¿ä."Thank you."¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÀ´äÀº "õ¸¸¿¡¿ä."¶ó´Â ¶æÀ¸·Î "You are welcome. /Don't mention it. /Not at all."µîÀÇ Ç¥ÇöÀ» ¾²ÁÒ. A: It was very kind of you to go to that trouble for me.B: It was no trouble at all. It was my pleasure.A: It's very kind of you to say so.A: Àú¸¦ À§Çؼ ±×·± ¼ö°í¸¦ ÇØ ÁÖ½Ã´Ï Á¤¸» °í¸¿½À´Ï´Ù.B: ¹¹ ¼ö°í¶ö °ÍÀÌ ÀÖ³ª¿ä. Á¦°¡ ÁÁ¾Æ¼ ÇÑ ÀÏÀä.A: ±×·¸°Ô ¸»¾¸ÇØ ÁÖ½Ã´Ï Á¤¸» °í¸¿½À´Ï´Ù.¡á°¨»çÀÇ ±âº» Ç¥Çö¢Â Thank you. /Thanks. ¢¹°¨»çÇÕ´Ï´Ù.¢Â Thanks a lot. /Thank you very much. /Thank you so much. ¢¹´ë´ÜÈ÷ °¨»çÇÕ´Ï´Ù.¢Â I'd appreciate it. ¢¹±×·¸°Ô ÇØ ÁÖ½Ã¸é °¨»çÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.¢Â I appreciate it very much. ¢¹±× Á¡ Á¤¸» °¨»çÇÕ´Ï´Ù.¢Â On behalf of our employees I'd like to thank you. ¢¹ÀúÈñ ȸ»ç¿øµéÀ» ´ëÇ¥Çؼ ´ç½Å¿¡°Ô °¨»ç µå¸®°í ½Í½À´Ï´Ù.¢Ä À߸ø ¾²ÀÏ ¼ö Àִ ǥÇö ¢Å¢Ã ¿©±â¼ 1È£¼±À¸·Î °¥¾ÆŸ¼Å¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù¡áYou have to shift to the No.1 Line.¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡í(X)¡áYou'll have to transfer to the No.1 Line from here.¡ë¡ë¡ë¡í(O)¢Áshift´Â ´ë°³ °ÅÁÖÁö³ª »ý°¢À» ¹Ù²Û´Ù´Â ¶æÀ̹ǷΠ¿©±â¼´Â ¸ÂÁö ¾Ê¾Æ¿ä. ±³ÅëÆíÀ» °¥¾ÆŸ´Â °ÍÀº º¸Åë transfer¶ó°í ÇØ¿ä. ±×¸®°í ³ë¼±À» °¥¾ÆŸ´Â ȯ½Â¿ªµµ transfer¶ó°í Çϴµ¥, À̶§´Â ¸í»çÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ºñÇà±â ¿©Çà Áß¿¡ °¥¾ÆŸ´Â ±âÂøÁö´Â stopover¶ó°í ÇØ¿ä.¡ÞNow you have to switch to the No.1 Line.(¿©±â¼ 1È£¼±À¸·Î °¥¾ÆŸ¼¼¿ä.)¡ÞYou have to get over to the No.1 Line.(1È£¼± ÂÊÀ¸·Î °¡¼Å¼ Ÿ¼¼¿ä.) ¢Ä ¿À´ÃÀÇ ÀϾî ÇѸ¶µð ¢Å ¢ÂÀϺ»¾îµµ ¿µ¾î¿Í °°Àº ÇüÅ·Π±¸¼ºµÇ¾î ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ë¡ëdebian-policy´Ô ¾È³çÇϼ¼¿ä? ÀúÈñ´Â Àüȸ¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇؼ °»ç¿Í 1 : 1 ·Î ¿Ü±¹¾î ÇнÀÀ» ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¢Ä Online Korea ¢Å ¶ó°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.¹Ì¸® Çã¶ô¹ÞÁö ¾Ê°í ÆíÁö µå·Á Á˼ÛÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ºÎµð ³Ê±×·¯¿ì½Å ¿ë¼¸¦.. ÀúÈñ ȸ»ç¿¡¼´Â ¿Ü±¹¾î(¿µ¾î,ÀϾî)¿¡ °ü½É ÀÖ´Â ¸¹Àº ºÐµé²² ¸ÅÀÏ(¿ù-±Ý), ¿µ¾îÀ¯¸Ó¿Í »ýÈ°¿¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ È¸È ÇÑ ¹®À徿À» ¹«·á·Î º¸³» µå¸®°í ÀÖ¾î¿ä. À§¿Í °°Àº ³»¿ëÀÇ ¼ºñ½º¸¦ ¹Þ¾Æº¸±â ¿øÇÏ½Ã¸é ¡ì [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¡í·Î "yes"¶ó´Â ³»¿ëÀÇ ´äÀåÀ» Áֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í, ÀúÈñ ÀüÈ ¿Ü±¹¾î °ÀÇ°¡ ±Ã±ÝÇϽŠºÐµéÀ» À§ÇØ, 1ȸ¿¡ ÇÑÇؼ¢Â ¹«·á ½Ã¹ü°ÀÇ ¢Âµµ ½Ç½ÃÇØ µå¸®°í ÀÖÀ¸´Ï Çѹø µé¾îº¸°í ½ÍÀ¸½Ã¸é Áö±Ý ½ÅûÇØ ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ¹«·á ½Ã¹ü°ÀÇ ½Åû ¹æ¹ýÀº ¢º ÀÌ°÷ ¢¸ À» Ŭ¸¯ÇϽŠÈÄ °ÀÇ ½Åû¶õ¿¡ Àִ½ùü°ÀÇ ½Åû ÆûÀ» ÀÛ¼ºÇϼż º¸³» ÁÖ½Ã¸é µË´Ï´Ù.¹°·Ð, ÀüÈ 02-588-0510 À¸·Îµµ ½ÅûÇÏ½Ç ¼ö ÀÖ±¸¿ä. ¾Æ¹«ÂÉ·Ï ÀÌ ÇнÀ¹ýÀÌ debian-policy´ÔÀÇ È¸È ½Ç·Â Çâ»ó¿¡ ÀÛÀº º¸ÅÆÀÌ µÇ¾úÀ¸¸é ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. debian-policy´Ô²²´Â http://www.debian.or.kr/Packages/unstable-kr/doc/debian-policy.html¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ÁÖ¼Ò¸¦ º¸°í ¸ÞÀÏ µå·È´Âµ¥¿ä,ºÒÇÊ¿äÇÑ Á¤º¸¿´´Ù¸é Á¤¸» Á˼ÛÇÕ´Ï´Ù.¾ÕÀ¸·Î Çã¶ô¾ø´Â ¸ÞÀÏÀº µå¸®Áö ¾Êµµ·Ï ÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.±×·³, ¾È³çÈ÷ °è¼¼¿ä.
Shared libs vs. plugins.
Moi! In the process of packaging the sound editor glame, I noticed this small issue: Glame (and other packages like xmms for example) makes use of plugins that are dlopen()ed on demand at runtime. Those plugins are compiled and linked as shared libs, but obviously, one does not want to create a shlibs file for them as they are strictly tied to the ABI of one particular package. Lintian, however, doesn't know how to distinguish between shared libs and plugins, and complains loudly about a missing shlibs on the plugins. For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the future in order to properly solve this issue. Any ideas? Best regards, Daniel. pgpR5lz9QA3G0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
Previously Daniel Kobras wrote: For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the future in order to properly solve this issue. Geez, again? Basically a .so files that is not in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/X11R6/lib or another directory listed in /etc/ld.so.conf is not a library (the dynamic linker can't find it anyway then) . Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
[PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
* Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010426 11:18]: Previously Daniel Kobras wrote: For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the future in order to properly solve this issue. Geez, again? Basically a .so files that is not in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/X11R6/lib or another directory listed in /etc/ld.so.conf is not a library (the dynamic linker can't find it anyway then) . Wichert, I think Geez, again? is the incorrect response to Daniel's mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against lintian, though it is likely far too old to automatically apply. Sean forwarded the bugs from lintian to debian-policy 8 months after the patch was submitted. Sadly, Sean did not give comments why he did so; however, I hope Sean will forgive me when I suggest he did so because he likely wants an amendement to policy to document the correct handling of .so files outside of the standard (and configured) paths before he changes lintian. (If he were to change it now, afaict, lintian would not be truly policy compliant.) In that vein, I have taken a stab at a policy diff. I have made the diff against the .txt version -- hopefully no one will be upset at me. Since I am not a Debian developer, I do not know if I can submit a policy proposal. If that is the case, and there are no obvious flaws in this patch, I would hope someone would kindly resubmit the proposal in their own name, so this bug could be fixed finally. :) To make things easy for anyone, lets just explicitly place this text in the public domain, so that it can be included in debian-policy without those hideous copyright issues. --- policy.txt Thu Apr 26 13:56:29 2001 +++ so-policy.txt Thu Apr 26 14:04:10 2001 @@ -2313,6 +2313,13 @@ library links point to them, just before `dpkg' continues the installation and removes the links! + It is the case that some packages supply plugins intended for + internal use only and these plugins are often shared libraries. If + the plugin files are not installed in the default search path of + `ld.so' (/lib, /usr/lib), or in common locations specified in + `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib), then the package is not + required to comply with the paragraph requiring symbolic links. + 9.1. The `shlibs' File Format - -- Earthlink: The #1 provider of unsolicited bulk email to the Internet. --- policy.txt Thu Apr 26 13:56:29 2001 +++ so-policy.txt Thu Apr 26 14:04:10 2001 @@ -2313,6 +2313,13 @@ library links point to them, just before `dpkg' continues the installation and removes the links! + It is the case that some packages supply plugins intended for + internal use only and these plugins often have an extension .so. If + the plugin files are not installed in the default search path of + `ld.so' (/lib, /usr/lib), or in common locations specified in + `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib), then the package is not + required to comply with the paragraph requiring symbolic links. + 9.1. The `shlibs' File Format - pgpl5miLScG1p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:13:41PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote: For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the future in order to properly solve this issue. Geez, again? Basically a .so files that is not in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/X11R6/lib or another directory listed in /etc/ld.so.conf is not a library (the dynamic linker can't find it anyway then) . Wichert, I think Geez, again? is the incorrect response to Daniel's mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against lintian, though it is likely far too old to automatically apply. Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? : --- policy.txtThu Apr 26 13:56:29 2001 +++ so-policy.txt Thu Apr 26 14:04:10 2001 @@ -2313,6 +2313,13 @@ library links point to them, just before `dpkg' continues the installation and removes the links! + It is the case that some packages supply plugins intended for + internal use only and these plugins are often shared libraries. If + the plugin files are not installed in the default search path of + `ld.so' (/lib, /usr/lib), or in common locations specified in + `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib), then the package is not + required to comply with the paragraph requiring symbolic links. + They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too. See my attempt in #66023... -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:42:41PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Wichert, I think Geez, again? is the incorrect response to Daniel's mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against lintian, though it is likely far too old to automatically apply. Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? : Manoj and I are only two people. Handling policy bugs is hard for a number of reasons: (1) There are a lot of them, and many of them are now quite long. (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure out what to do with it. I asked a week or so ago for help in handling this sort of stuff, but only one offer has been forthcoming. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure out what to do with it. Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ideas but haven't received any attention. Make a list of outstanding proposals with their status and a brief description a la the old policy summaries joeyh did, or the even older policy todo list Christian Schwarz kept. Send reminders to the proposers. Close suggested changes that haven't made it far enough to get a patch, and suggest the proposer open a new report with a patch and a summary of discussion so far. Cheers, aj, who notes the must/should/may thing seems to have died now that I've stopped disagreeing -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net) pgpOlrnE9AeXp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
* Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010426 14:54]: Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? : Especially since both you and Wichert have put effort into this -- that is two possible seconds for a proposal. I've taken a closer look at the policy-process text and I do not think I am actually allowed to make proposals. (Though in the section about seconding, it makes especial reference to registered Debian developers. Perhaps for the purposes of getting this bug taken care of, simply being An Interested User counts for proposals. If this is in error (Julian/Manoj?) let me know and I'll stop proposing things. :) They need to be exempt from the rule for shlibs file, too. See my attempt in #66023... Aye, too true. It may be easier for the proposal to not decide the paths involved -- it should be sufficient to say which paths are *not* allowed. Another shot (again placed in the public domain).: --- policy.txt Thu Apr 26 19:31:26 2001 +++ so-policy.txt Thu Apr 26 19:57:17 2001 @@ -2313,6 +2313,15 @@ library links point to them, just before `dpkg' continues the installation and removes the links! + It is the case that some packages supply plugins intended for + internal use only and these plugins are often technically shared + libraries. If the plugin files are not installed in the default + search path of `ld.so' (currently /lib, /usr/lib), or in common + locations specified in `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib), + then the package's plugins are not required to comply with the + paragraph requiring symbolic links nor the `shlibs' sections + following. + 9.1. The `shlibs' File Format - -- Earthlink: The #1 provider of unsolicited bulk email to the Internet. --- policy.txt Thu Apr 26 19:31:26 2001 +++ so-policy.txt Thu Apr 26 19:57:17 2001 @@ -2313,6 +2313,15 @@ library links point to them, just before `dpkg' continues the installation and removes the links! + It is the case that some packages supply plugins intended for + internal use only and these plugins are often technically shared + libraries. If the plugin files are not installed in the default + search path of `ld.so' (currently /lib, /usr/lib), or in common + locations specified in `/etc/ld.so.conf' (such as /usr/X11R6/lib), + then the package's plugins are not required to comply with the + paragraph requiring symbolic links nor the `shlibs' sections + following. + 9.1. The `shlibs' File Format - pgpDcex5ySjTp.pgp Description: PGP signature
