[fpc-pascal] linux: should we hard-code versioned or unversioned shared libraries in our apps?

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

Hi,

On 15 August 2012 12:27, Mark Morgan Lloyd
<markMLl.fpc-pascal at telemetry.co.uk> wrote:
> Quite a long way from ideal, since it implies that an administrator has to
> be involved even if the program is only sitting in an unprivileged user's
> home directory (or is a symlink in ~ good enough?).

Correct, definitely not ideal. I was just thinking about the $HOME
directory. I'll try and play with that now, and see what happens to my
apps. Maybe my apps should all have startup scripts that define local
LD_LIBRARY_PATH options?


> I'm tempted to say that this is a distro issue, and that if an upstream
> project (FireBird, OpenSSL, PostgreSQL) normally publishes an unversioned
> library that a distro is at fault if it "decorates" it with an appended
> version number without providing a symlink chain.

They explicitly mention that general runtime libraries should not
include the unversioned symlink. Only the -devel packages should
include those. That makes me think, why do we then need the
unversioned symlink in the first place!

Fedora:
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages

OpenSUSE:
   http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy#Unversioned_packages

Ubuntu/Debian:
   ?? I can't remember the URL now.


-- 
Regards,
  - Graeme -


_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net