Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-19 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:31:10PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Our Xaw-replacement handling is seriously pathological in every sense of > > the term. > > > > This will no longer be a concern in woody. With XFree86 4.0.1, libXaw is > > coming out of

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-17 Thread Edward Betts
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our Xaw-replacement handling is seriously pathological in every sense of > the term. > > This will no longer be a concern in woody. With XFree86 4.0.1, libXaw is > coming out of xlib6g and can be handled with the normal > Conflicts/Replaces/Provides m

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-17 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:35:08PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but the wording should be more > explicit about what happens if the package wishes to add its directory into > ld.so.conf. The Xaw library replacements do that, but it's not regulated by > the P

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-10 Thread Josip Rodin
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 no

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-09 Thread David Engel
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 09:01:02AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:35:08PM +0200, Josip Rodin 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

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-09 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 01:15:19AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 04:17:18PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > > That is ld.so(8) on my system. > > > > > > Ditto. Actually, since we basically only use ELF nowadays, that > > > should probably be replaced by "ld-linux.so(8

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-08 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 04:17:18PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > That is ld.so(8) on my system. > > > > Ditto. Actually, since we basically only use ELF nowadays, that > > should probably be replaced by "ld-linux.so(8)". > > I don't know what ld-linux.so is. Please don't use it. > > Marc

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-08 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 09:01:02AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:35:08PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:14:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > I propose prepending text like the following to section 4.3. > > > > > > Shared libraries

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-07-06 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:35:08PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:14:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > I propose prepending text like the following to section 4.3. > > > > Shared libraries are .so files containing compiled > > code that are loaded by th

Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-06-22 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:14:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > I propose prepending text like the following to section 4.3. > > Shared libraries are .so files containing compiled > code that are loaded by the ld.so(5) library. That is ld.so(8) on my system. > They mu

Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-06-21 Thread Julian Gilbey
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.1.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IANAD. But I want to be... :) In any event, I hope the following change can be made so my package (gdam at http://www.ffem.org/gdam) can be made lintian clean.

Re: proposal: treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-06-11 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 07:02:10AM -0700, David Benson wrote: > I have bug #65345 against lintian. Should I file a bug > against debian-policy? Or against what? Yes, severity wishlist. Read /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/proposal.text.gz (or equivalent) for more details. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=

Re: proposal: treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-06-10 Thread David Benson
I have bug #65345 against lintian. Should I file a bug against debian-policy? Or against what? Thanks, Dave On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Edward Betts wrote: > David Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PROPOSAL: ... > Seconded. Shouldn't this have a bug number?

Re: proposal: treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-06-10 Thread Edward Betts
David Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PROPOSAL: > Shared libraries and "plugins" should be > distinguished (and defined) explicitly by policy. > > The intent is that policy section 4.3 will > no longer apply to plugins, just shared libraries. > > PROPOSED CHANGE: > >

proposal: treat plugins and shared libraries differently

2000-06-08 Thread David Benson
IANAD. But I want to be... :) In any event, I hope the following change can be made so my package (gdam at http://www.ffem.org/gdam) can be made lintian clean. = PROPOSAL: Shared libraries and "plugins" should be