Re: The fate of libc5
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > If it is not a serious problem I vote for leaving it in woody and remove
> > > > it later.
> > >
> > > Taking it out of woody does not make it unavailable. As with any obsoleted
> > > programs/libs, the archive.debian.org repository keeps them around.
> >
> > And what happens if e.g. a new version of libc6 or perl or anything else
> > essential conflicts with libc5? If you have libc5 installed, you have to
> > choose between removing libc5 and not upgrading your distribution. This
> > can't happen if libc5 is still in the distribution.
>
> We can try to make sure that wont happen. The other alternative is to make
> libc5 self contained, and only provide the runtime (no -dev packages, and
> no altgcc) in woody. This would require ld-linux.so.1 from ldso me merged
> into this package, and ldd and ldconfig dropped (and ldso disappear
> completely, since it wont be needed).
>
> This way we don't entice further development with it, at the same time we
> still have it around to make sure it is installable.
That's a solution I can totally support: You can still run libc5 binaries
and I don't think there are still people who want to compile for libc5.
> Ben
cu,
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Reply to: