Maybe UNIX-way name for .so library ? about nocache

[Feh]

This would need further changes in the documentation and the wrapper script. @onlyjob, what do you think about the general idea? Personally, I think the “lib” prefix is misleading, since the shared object only overrides functions and cannot really be “used” like another library…

[pavlinux]

Then better nocache-wrapper, than libnocache.so,

[onlyjob]

I'm with you @Feh as I also don't recognise the value of this change. I actually prefer name "nocache.so" since it is a good match for executable while it is not a library so we can't comply with policy regarding SONAME (and/or ABI/API) anyway. In Debian we install "nocache.so" to private location under /usr/lib/nocache so it is not exposed as much as other libraries hence there is no need to prefix it with "lib". Perhaps we can consider changing default install location but there is already some flexibility for that matter as location of "library" can be given at build-time... @pavlinux, what makes you think that renaming is worth it? What were you trying to achieve?

[noushi]

+1 for storing nocache.so (or nocache-wrapper) in /usr/lib/nocache/ .
it's cleaner and it's not a regular library.

[onlyjob]

:) On Debian it is also a policy requirement to avoid exposing private libs globally.