On 09/10/2015 03:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I would like to propose that the no-bundled-libraries policy be > amended as follows: "Any package that has an existing mechanism to > link against a shared system library and functions correctly when > doing so must link against that library and not bundle it internally. > Any package whose upstream releases cannot link against a shared > system library (or are incompatible with the version in Fedora) may > bundle that library (without requiring a special exemption) but MUST > add Provides: bundled(<libname>) = <version> in the spec file for each > known bundled library.(This will allow us to track down the bundling > when we need to). Package maintainers should continue attempt to > engage upstream to support linking against shared system libraries > wherever possible, due to the advantages it provides the package > maintainer." Is <libname> the name of the SRPM which provides the system version of the library? How do you propose to resolve symbol conflicts if both the system library and the bundled library are loaded into the same process? The current ELF linking scheme lacks good support for bundling libraries whose exported symbols have not been mangled in some way. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
