On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:44:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > > > This recommendation needs to be elminated entirely. It is *not* ok for > > packages that provide libraries to stick extra linker paths in the > > global configuration, whether by modifying ld.so.conf or by adding to > > /etc/ld.so.conf.d. Either the libraries provided by the packages are > > meant to be public, in which case they should be installed to the > > standard library path instead of needlessly adding another directory > > that's going to be globally visible anyway; or they should not, and the > > cooperating packages should use rpath instead. > > > > Use of rpath should still be discouraged, but if someone is bound and > > determined to violate the FHS with their library paths in order to have > > private libraries, they should make them really private with rpath > > instead of using this "compromise" solution that takes the worst of each > > approach. > > Seconded.
I also agree. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
