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. As a starting point, I'll > toss out one possible resolution: > > Rename the libc-* packages to libc-gnu-* (or gnu-libc-*), and use Provides > headers to "fake" the old names, for a period of time (IE, to allow a grace > period in which packages which depend on libc can change their dependancy > listing). Other libc packages would then be libc-netbsd-* or netbsd-libc-* > in a similar fashion, allowing proper dependancy declarations for any libc > packages which might end up being part of Debian. > > Any thoughts? Comments? Spitwads? I don't know about what dependencies you're talking about. If you're talking about "Build-Depends: libc6 (>= x.x.x)" renaming doesn't help anything. It should be "Build-Depends: libc6 (>= x.x.x) | netbsd-libc (>= x.x.x)". I'm also thinking about porting glibc to *BSD. I think that would solve very much problems, as a lot of programs just expect to have glibc installed. A lot of kernel-specific things are already fixed because we want them to compile on Debian GNU/Hurd. But the Hurd also uses glibc, I expect really much trouble with that. Most people just don't know how to write portable or don't care about it. I don't know if I'm the only one thinking about porting glibc. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpeG9yGL6_dl.pgp
Description: PGP signature