On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 11:45:17AM +0200, Stefan Hornburg wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:48:15AM -0400, Charles Fry wrote:
> >> 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 subdirectories of the /usr/lib directory, in which case they > >> should arrange to add that directory in /etc/ld.so.conf in the > >> package's post-installation script, and remove it in the package's > >> post-removal script. > >>If I understand this correctly, if there was a compelling reason to use > >>a /usr/lib subdirectory (I don't know what that woudl be), then > >>/etc/ld.so.cnof would need to be updated. > >I think that suggestion in policy is worse than using rpath and that this > >ought to be revised. > >But anyway, this is not in the list of RC issues for etch, so downgrading. > Is it compliant with the policy to keep the .so-files in > /usr/lib/courier-authlib and point symlinks from /usr/lib to the .so-files ? I think it would be no more or less policy-compliant than what you currently have. Short of actually changing the package to comply exactly with the FHS, IMHO any changes here would just be busy work. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
