On Sat, Oct 31 2009, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2009-10-29 Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29 2009, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
>> > These are not proper shared libraries but are dlopened bindings for
>> > guile, which takes them outside the scope of the abovementioned part of
>> > policy.
>
>> Then should they not be in a private path?
>
> This seems to be a project for guile-1.9. As Simon already noted using
> /usr/lib/ is current practice.
>
>> As long as they are in the public library directories, you are still
>> under the policy directive, as far as I can see.
>
> Why? Shouldn't intent matter more than than binary format? Does
> running ldconfig provide any benefit?
The intent of the author does not extend to the users; since the
libraries are in the public path, end users may write code that links
to them. When a new library is installed, if the ld.so cache is not
updated, the user applications will not pickup the new libraries, and
ultimately break.
This is a bit of a stretch, I know. Could you please bring this
up on -policy, so we get a feel for what the right thing to do would
be? I think you might consider adding a lintian override, so other
people don't file a similar bug if this report is closed.
manoj
--
The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more
annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation. --
Oscar Wilde
Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
