Steve Langasek writes:
> 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
Rafael Laboissiere writes:
> * Bill Allombert [2009-03-17 17:02]:
>> What is the rational for making the library private in the first place ?
> In the case of the octave package, it is a decision of the upstream
> authors. I think that one of the reasons is to avoid name clashes
> between diffe
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Bill Allombert [2009-03-17 17:02]:
>
> > What is the rational for making the library private in the first place ?
>
> In the case of the octave package, it is a decision of the upstream
> authors. I think that one of the rea
* Bill Allombert [2009-03-17 17:02]:
> What is the rational for making the library private in the first place ?
In the case of the octave package, it is a decision of the upstream
authors. I think that one of the reasons is to avoid name clashes between
different branches of octave. For instanc
* Steve Langasek [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 pr
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 07:52 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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. Eithe
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:44:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Steve Langasek writes:
>>
>> > 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, whethe
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:52:10AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:40:36AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Debian policy 10.2 Libraries says:
>
> > | Packages containing shared libraries that may be linked to by other
> > | packages' binaries, but which for some co
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:44:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > 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
Steve Langasek writes:
> 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
* Steve Langasek [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:52:10 -0700]:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:40:36AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Debian policy 10.2 Libraries says:
> > | Packages containing shared libraries that may be linked to by other
> > | packages' binaries, but which for some compelling reas
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:40:36AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Debian policy 10.2 Libraries says:
> | Packages containing shared libraries that may be linked to by other
> | packages' binaries, but which for some compelling reason can not be
> | installed in /usr/lib directory, may instal
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Hi,
Debian policy 10.2 Libraries says:
| Packages containing shared libraries that may be linked to by other
| packages' binaries, but which for some compelling reason can not be
| installed in /usr/lib directory, may install the shared library files
| in
13 matches
Mail list logo
