Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes:
> 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
Fine by me even though my vote doesn't count.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
