Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > * Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}.  -- I would consider this a
> > blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
> > build scripts to fix this if necessary).
> 
> Why is this a problem, assuming the name doesn't conflict with anything? (Of 
> course a generic name like libparser.so would be a problem.)
> 
* Organizationally -- I wouldn't want it there because it serves a wholly
  different purpose.
* Naming-conflict wise, it's easier to tell people on review to move private
  libs on review than to find out later that there's a conlict and then have
  to get two maintainres to decide whether some of their libs are private,
  who is responsible for moving their libraries, etc.
* For rpm, it adds unnecessary provides which are not only potential
  conflicts but also add bloat to the repodata that users have to download.

I suppose in strict answer to your question; not every reviewer would need
consider this a blocker.  But if I was reviewing a package, I would
submit patches to make it use a private directory and expect that those
patches would be applied for approval and its one of the things Id see if
I was evaluating a reviewer and say, eh... I can see why you don't require
that but it does make me feel you're a little more sloppy than otherwise.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120420/1548acea/attachment.sig>