Re: ed package
I think an essential base package would make sense. If it's a shared library,
it will be required by too many package to make it build-essential. The -dev
package would be build-essential.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:31:42PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 10:09:33PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Uhm, yes. Definitely should be packaged. That way we at least have a way
> > > to allow folks to declare (build|)dependancies on "GNU libc or libiberty".
>
> Packages never depend on libc, becuase it's a (build-)essential package.
>
> > Would it make more sense to include it in the libc package? That way we
> > end up with a single package that approximates the functionality of glibc,
> > rather than requiring several of them.
>
> I think libibery should be (build-)essential. Putting libc and
> libiberty in one package is wrong because they have a different
> upstream. I think the right way is having a libc package which depends
> on the libiberty package.
>
> 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
Reply to: