On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 18:16 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Denis Leroy wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 08:49 -0700, Denis Leroy wrote: > >> > >>> Rex Dieter wrote: > >>> > >>>> Eric Work wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I was previously unsure whether %pre/%post ldconfig lines on shared > >>>>> library devel packages were needed. In a recent discussion with some > >>>>> others on #fedora-extras I was informed that they were not needed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The policy is clear, IMO, ldconfig is needed if said package > >>>> includes any > >>>> shared libraries (pkgs with *symlinks* to shared libs, like most -devel > >>>> ones, don't count). > >>> > >>> I think there's an implicit assumption here that you are installing > >>> shared libraries *meant to be picked up by the dynamic linker*. Some > >>> packages ship dynamic libraries that are dlopened() directly by the > >>> application (plugins), in that case calling ldconfig will not do > >>> anything and so is not necessary. > >> > >> > >> The open question here would be: Should dlopen'ed plugins in $libdir be > >> allowed? > > > > Do you mean in %libdir itself, or anywhere under %libdir ? > > I think he means in %libdir itself, thats how I read it when I posted I > agreed :) Correct, I meant %libdir itself. > In a subdir under libdir is not only fine, thats actually mandatory by > the FHS. Exactly. This keeps "shared libraries" separate from "plugins" [1]. Ralf [1] I prefer to think of "shared libraries" as "ld.so plugins"/"system plugins", and of "dlopen'ed plugins" as "application plugins". -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
