Re: Dependancies on libc
Please CC me on all replies, even though I am (finally) subscribed. It
works better with my mail sorting setup.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Having run into a few packages, now, which have dependancies on specific
> GNU libc versions (or rather, libc versions, when all that the packaging
> system understands is libc == GNU libc), which compiled just fine under
> the NetBSD libc, I come to the following conclusion:
> We should request that a provision be made for desginating which libc is
> required, from the developer/policy community.
This is not true; GNU libc is called libc6 rather than libc. So there is
no conflict. Also, the source packages don't generally have dependencies
on libc6, only the compiled binary ones (as makes sense for dynamically
linked Linux executables).
By the way, in response to your question, I at least am an official Debian
developer; are there any others on this project? (This is mainly a question
out of curiosity rather than anything else.)
To all of you out there:
By the way, I will be at the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City from Jan
30 through Feb 1, in the Debian booth. Come by and maybe we can talk
about Debian GNU/NetBSD as well as Debian GNU/Linux!
Also, I have made some progress regarding packaging useful programs such
as sudo (and getting it to work, of course), gettext, sharutils (with nls
disabled only), and libtool. I have been having problems getting fakeroot
working, but I will post about those separately. Most of the problems I have
been able to overcome, but I need a bit of advice on one of them. Consider
this my "hi, count me in!" post.
- Jimmy Kaplowitz