(I'm sorry for the late reply. I was very busy the last days. I'll catch
up with the other mails here on debian-policy soon.)
The result of this discussion surprises me. I remember a few other
discussions on this topic here and the result has always been: `the
packaging manual is completely correct--if everyone does it exactly as
it's documented, we won't have any problems'.
Does someone know which technical aspects we forgot in all these
discussions or which part of it has changed now??
Note, that I'm no ldconfig expert at all, so I can only believe what
people tell me. Before I update the manuals, implement a lintian check,
and start filing bug reports, I want to get this approved by a few
"experts".
If I got everyone right, it's suggest to change the policy into something
like this: (please correct me if I'm wrong!)
[that's no quotation!]
Packaging Manual - chapter 12: shared libraries
...
Any package installing shared libraries in a directory that's listed
in /etc/ld.so.conf has to call "ldconfig" in its postinst script, unless
this script is called with a "failed-*" or "abort-*" argument (in which
case ldconfig may _not_ be called).
It is especially important not to call ldconfig in the postrm or preinst
scripts in the case where the package is being upgraded (see Details of
unpack phase of installation or upgrade, section 6.3), as ldconfig will
see the temporary names that dpkg uses for the files while it is
installing them and will make the shared library links point to them,
just before dpkg continues the installation and removes the links!
[end of proposal]
One question: is it important to call ldconfig if the library has been
removed? (I guess "no", but it would be good if someone could verify
this.)
If it should turn out that we need to change policy as described above,
this would have to be done ASAP since it does affect the stability of
"hamm". This is a (in my eyes) drastic change of policy and thus it has to
be approved by all developers. I'd prepare a Policy Weekly posting just
for this topic in the next few days.
It's very important for me to hear the opinions of the "ldconfig and dpkg
experts" on the above proposal and the implications to stability of hamm
ASAP!
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
http://www.schwarz-online.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
