In Policy Bug#519941, it was proposed to remove the Policy permission
for packages to modify ld.so.conf in exceptional circumstances. The
implication would be that all packages which do this will need to either
move their libraries into a standard library directory like /usr/lib if
they're really
Hi all,
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 21:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In Policy Bug#519941, it was proposed to remove the Policy permission
> for packages to modify ld.so.conf in exceptional circumstances. The
> implication would be that all packages which do this will need to either
> move their libr
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 21:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > In Policy Bug#519941, it was proposed to remove the Policy permission
> > for packages to modify ld.so.conf in exceptional circumstances. The
> > im
Christian Holm Christensen writes:
> This could be very bad for the root-system package set. ROOT has
> libraries named like libMatrix, libPostscript, libPhysics, libMath, and
> so on - i.e., very general names. For that reason I moved all the
> packages into the subdirectory /usr/lib/root to
I demand that Bill Allombert may or may not have written...
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 21:25 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
>> ROOT has libraries named like libMatrix, libPostscript, libPhysics,
>> libMath, and so on -
Darren Salt writes:
> Perhaps this?
>
> * Install the binaries in /usr/lib/root.
> * Provide wrappers such as the following in /usr/bin:
>
> #! /bin/sh -e
> export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/root"${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:}$LD_LIBRARY_PATH}"
> exec /usr/lib/root/"$(basename "$0")" "$@"
It's genera
Hi again,
Let me first clear up a confusion:
I agree that putting a library in a sub-directory does not disambiguate
ld.so searches. If libFoo.so.1 exists in both /usr/lib/bar
and /usr/lib/baz and both these directories are in the ld.so search path
(one way or another), then there is an ambig
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:41:09PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> Yes and no. If bar and baz had put libfoo.so.1 in /usr/lib/bar
> and /usr/lib/baz respectively, one could at least install both packages
> at the same time without any conflict. If a user needed to use baz's
> libfoo.so
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
>
> This could be very bad for the root-system package set. ROOT has
> libraries named like libMatrix, libPostscript, libPhysics, libMath, and
> so on - i.e., very general names. For that reason I moved all the
> packa
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:43:16PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
>> This could be very bad for the root-system package set. ROOT has
>> libraries named like libMatrix, libPostscript, libPhysics, libMath,
>> and so on - i.e., very general names. For that reason I
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:41:09PM +0200, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> > I understand this issue, but putting libMatrix in /usr/lib/root avoid file
> > conflict with other package, do not address the problem of library name
> > conflict at run-time.
> Agreed. Suppose you have packages bar
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 04:59:26PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > For the root-system binaries, there is of course the option to link with
> > RPATH set. However, I believe that the Policy actually forbids this.
> I see no reason why policy should forbid rpath's for that case.
For the standard
12 matches
Mail list logo
