* Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [2009-03-16 07:52]: > 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.
Coincidentally, there has been a followup to Bug#510579 yesterday [1] where it is asked to add a /etc/ld.so.conf.d/octave.conf file for making the private libraries distributed with octave3.0 available publicly. It seems that this would make the life of maintainers of shogun and octave-ruby much easier. What should I do now? Ask the maintainers of those packages to use rpath? [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=510579#78 -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
