fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Clarification on Packaging Guidelines

Subject: Re: Clarification on Packaging Guidelines
From: Ralf Corsepius
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:22:56 +0200
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 18:16 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Denis Leroy wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 08:49 -0700, Denis Leroy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Eric Work wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I was previously unsure whether %pre/%post ldconfig lines on shared
> >>>>> library devel packages were needed.  In a recent discussion with some
> >>>>> others on #fedora-extras I was informed that they were not needed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The policy is clear, IMO, ldconfig is needed if said package 
> >>>> includes any
> >>>> shared libraries (pkgs with *symlinks* to shared libs, like most -devel
> >>>> ones, don't count).
> >>>
> >>> I think there's an implicit assumption here that you are installing 
> >>> shared libraries *meant to be picked up by the dynamic linker*. Some 
> >>> packages ship dynamic libraries that are dlopened() directly by the 
> >>> application (plugins), in that case calling ldconfig will not do 
> >>> anything and so is not necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >> The open question here would be: Should dlopen'ed plugins in $libdir be
> >> allowed?
> > 
> > Do you mean in %libdir itself, or anywhere under %libdir ?
> 
> I think he means in %libdir itself, thats how I read it when I posted I 
> agreed :)
Correct, I meant %libdir itself.

> In a subdir under libdir is not only fine, thats actually mandatory by 
> the FHS.

Exactly. This keeps "shared libraries" separate from "plugins" [1].

Ralf

[1] I prefer to think of "shared libraries" as "ld.so plugins"/"system
plugins", and of "dlopen'ed plugins" as "application plugins".


-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>