Re: Rationale for Policy 8.4

2010-04-05 Thread Russ Allbery
Nikolaus Rath writes: > Simon McVittie writes: >> The thing to do would be to pick up the SONAME at compile time, and use >> that as the thing you dlopen(). Alternatively, assuming the >> Python-related code is an optional part, you could split out the >> Python-related code into a plugin, link

Re: Rationale for Policy 8.4

2010-04-05 Thread Nikolaus Rath
Simon McVittie writes: > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 at 11:39:49 -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> Can someone explain to me the reason behind this policy? What's wrong >> with shipping libpython2.6 so in python2.6 / why should an application >> dlopen() libpython2.6.so.1 rather than libpython2.6.so? > > The

Re: Rationale for Policy 8.4

2010-04-05 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 at 11:39:49 -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Can someone explain to me the reason behind this policy? What's wrong > with shipping libpython2.6 so in python2.6 / why should an application > dlopen() libpython2.6.so.1 rather than libpython2.6.so? The rationale probably doesn't appl

Rationale for Policy 8.4

2010-04-05 Thread Nikolaus Rath
Hello, I have an application that tries to dlopen() libpython2.6.so. In accordance with the Debian Policy, section 8.4, this file is included in python2.6-dev rather than python2.6. However, running an ordinary application should probably not require a -dev package. Can someone explain to me the