On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:22:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Perhaps "common code" or "duplicated code" instead of "shared code", to
> > avoid ambiguity wrt shared libraries?
> 
> How about "duplicated code"?  New patch:

I have 2 comments about this:
- It was suggested that this shouldn't only cover libraries.  This
  version still only takes about libraries.
- Some packages contain a forked version of a library.  Policy should
  say to try and merge them in the Debian package.  This might
  not work for all packages since the changes aren't compatible, in
  which case I see 2 options:
  - Keep it internal and link staticly
  - Make a seperate source package of it.
  It would be nice if policy suggested one of those approaches.  But I'm
  not really sure this belongs in policy.


Kurt

> 
> --- orig/policy.sgml
> +++ mod/policy.sgml
> @@ -2077,6 +2077,30 @@
>         the file to the list in <file>debian/files</file>.</p>
>        </sect>
>  
> +      <sect id="embeddedfiles">
> +     <heading>Convenience copies of libraries</heading>
> +
> +     <p>
> +       Some software packages include in their distribution convenience
> +       copies of libraries from other software packages, generally so
> +       that users compiling from source don't have to download multiple
> +       packages.  Debian packages should not make use of these
> +       convenience copies.  If the included library is already in the
> +       Debian archive, the Debian packaging should ensure that binary
> +       packages reference the libraries already in Debian and the
> +       convenience copy is not used.  If the included library is not
> +       already in Debian, it should be packaged separately as a
> +       prerequisite.
> +       <footnote>
> +         Having multiple copies of the same code in Debian is
> +         inefficient, often creates either static linking or shared
> +         library conflicts, and, most importantly, increases the
> +         difficulty of handling security vulnerabilities in the
> +         duplicated code.
> +       </footnote>
> +     </p>
> +      </sect>
> +
>      </chapt>
>  
> -- 
> Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to