On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 08:41:35PM -0500, David Engel wrote:
> > > Maybe we should define the default directories that every ld.so.conf file
> > > should contain - /lib /usr/lib /usr/X11R6/lib - and mark every other
>
> /lib and /usr/lib are always included implicitly, unless ldconfig is
> told not to include them.
OK, one more reason Policy should mention them as the default directories
to put shared libraries in, documenting existing practice. :) Besides, the
FHS isn't very clear (AFAICT) on this.
So, how about this diff to policy:
--- policy.sgml.prev Mon Jul 10 11:01:16 2000
+++ policy.sgml Mon Jul 10 11:41:12 2000
@@ -2158,6 +2158,27 @@
</p>
<p>
+ Shared object files (i.e. <file>libsoname.so</file>) that are not
+ intented to be linked to by other packages' binaries should be put
+ in subdirectories of <file>/usr/lib</file> directory. Such files
+ will then be exempt from all the rules that cover ordinary shared
+ libraries, except that they must not be installed executable.
+ <footnote>A common example are the so-called ``plug-ins'',
+ internal shared objects that are dynamically loaded by programs
+ using <manref name="dlopen" section="3">.</footnote>
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Packages containing shared libraries that should be linked to by
+ other packages' binaries, but which for some compelling reason can
+ not be put in <file>/usr/lib</file> directory, may put the shared
+ library files in subdirectories of <file>/usr/lib</file>
+ directory, in which case they should add that directory in
+ <file>/etc/ld.so.conf</file> in package's post-installation
+ script, and remove it in package's post-removal script.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
An ever increasing number of packages are using libtool to
do their linking. The latest GNU libtools (>= 1.3a) can take
advantage of the metadata in the installed libtool archive
This skips all mentions of ld.so manual page, so the Linux<->Hurd problem is
gone :) and it says what's important.
Comments? Seconds?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
