Re: symlink app lib to common libs

["Jonas Sundström" <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Walter <walter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jonas Sundström wrote:
> > Walter <walter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>(Non-guru type here again)  Would it make sense to have a
> >>"lib" directory in each app's folder, as was suggested,
> >>and then symlink to the actual library?
> > 
> > You loose the only real benefit of the app/lib approach,
> > which is to have the required [non-base] libs it needs, 
> > safe and sound with the application.
 ...
> Then THOSE libraries could be placed directly in the lib
> sub-dir, rather than a symlink, could they not?  In fact,
> don't even bother with symlinks for the common libraries,
> but just add (something like) "./lib' in front of the
> global library path(???), to keep the non-base libs out
> of /usr/local/lib. (Can this be done?)

If non-base libs are taken out of /usr/local/lib
then there is no purpose to that folder.
Base libs go in /usr/lib.

I believe the ports system does a good job at managing
dependencies, but as we might be leaving ports, we may
want to look beyond BSD, beyond traditional unix, and 
think of what we want from the system. How do you 
want to interact with it? (How do you want to install things,
port things, distribute, remove, upgrade, merge, split, nuke,
visualize. What can be automated and when does the user/
admin need to be in control?)

Ports is a stopgap solution for DragonFly, and to me 
pkgsrc doesn't seem different enough from ports to 
make it less of a stopgap, unless it can actually reduce
the workload involved in managing the software catalog.

Maybe I'm just too new to BSD to appreciate the difference.

/Jonas Sundström.                www.kirilla.com