Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > * Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}.  -- I would consider this a
> > blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
> > build scripts to fix this if necessary).
> Why is this a problem, assuming the name doesn't conflict with anything? (Of 
> course a generic name like would be a problem.)
* Organizationally -- I wouldn't want it there because it serves a wholly
  different purpose.
* Naming-conflict wise, it's easier to tell people on review to move private
  libs on review than to find out later that there's a conlict and then have
  to get two maintainres to decide whether some of their libs are private,
  who is responsible for moving their libraries, etc.
* For rpm, it adds unnecessary provides which are not only potential
  conflicts but also add bloat to the repodata that users have to download.

I suppose in strict answer to your question; not every reviewer would need
consider this a blocker.  But if I was reviewing a package, I would
submit patches to make it use a private directory and expect that those
patches would be applied for approval and its one of the things Id see if
I was evaluating a reviewer and say, eh... I can see why you don't require
that but it does make me feel you're a little more sloppy than otherwise.


Attachment: pgpreBlsMcMN8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

devel mailing list

[Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Home]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel List]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Add to Google Powered by Linux