On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:36:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> + to by third party executables (binaries of other packages), > >> + should be installed in the subdirectories of the > Richard> ^^^ > > Richard> I would drop that "the", to make clear that packages can create > Richard> their own subdirectory for the plugins. > > Umm. Perhaps one3 should specify ``the subdirectories of > "/usr/lib/<package>/: directory''?
Wouldn't that imply that one has to make /usr/lib/<package>/<something>/ subdirectory, or several of them? I agree with what Richard said, just drop the "the". > Richard> Anyway, do you really mean _all_ the rules? I would expect > Richard> that they should still be compiled with -fPIC, for the same > Richard> reasons as shared libraries -- memory pages with relocatable > Richard> code can otherwise not be shared between processes. (Please > Richard> correct me if plugins are not normally relocatable.) > > Richard> Also, stripping with --strip-unneeded still seems like a good idea. > > Hmm. I assumed that since these were internal details of the > package, one need not make policy about them, since internal detail > should be left to the maintainers to implement. How about adding what > you said above as an informative footnote? That way, every maintainer > that reads policy shall no it is a good idea, and why, but policy > shall not intrude into internal matters of the package. > > I definitely agree that what you say is a darned good idea, > but I am not convinced that we need policy about that. I think we should amend the proposal with a note that the plugins aren't exempt from stripping -- this is my oversight. Also, that is a "should" rule, so if there are exceptions, this won't cause serious bugs. I'm don't know about -fPIC, though, that is a "must" rule. A footnote would be fine, I suppose. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification