On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:07:08AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 06:25:20PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > retitle 221982 Please put nss modules in /lib/nss/ (or something like that) > > severity 221982 wishlist > > reassign 221982 glibc > > thanks > > > > Please keep myself in the Cc list. > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:10:43PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > > > > > glibc is misplacing libnss_* according to Andrew Suffield. > > > > > > > Disclaimer: I don't know that these files do, I trust this to the > > > > descretion of the glibc maintainers :). > > > > > > It's all good. Andrew's wrong in this particular case. Those files are > > > used to help glibc figure out things like how to read /etc/passwd and > > > such. These all are useful when /usr hasn't been mounted yet (and could > > > potentially be required for mounting it off of a remote NFS volume) > > > > Shouldn't it be in /lib/nss/ then? This is a good reason to not put it > > in /usr/lib/<package>/, but, I don't see why it shouldn't be in > > /lib/(nss|glibc-modules|whatever)/. These files are indeed no shared > > libraries, which makes it unnessasary (and against FHS if you're reading > > it in a certain way) to put them directly in /lib. > > You can link to them directly as shared libraries if you want to. They > are valid shared libraries. I don't see how the fact that normal use > uses dlopen makes them any less shared libraries. They don't fit lintian's notion of a shared library - that is, they aren't packaged like one. No shlibs file, no ldconfig call in postinst, etc. "If it quacks like a duck...", etc. > I'd rather add shlibs entries for them, or a lintian exception. They > do not violate policy by living in /lib. I still think lintian should just ignore them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature