Re: Do we still need libc5?

[Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org>]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Roger Leigh:
>
>> We can't provide proper security support, and by now, libc5 is likely
>> full of holes, so IMO it's best if we drop it.  It's not like there's
>> any active maintenance or we can do any serious work on it: it's dead
>> code.
>>
>> If users need it, they can always grab a sarge (or older) CD and
>> install from that.
>
> I agree.  Security support would have made the difference, but the
> rest you can get from a CD.

To follow up to the original report, the full package list for removal
(and applicable RC bugs) are as follows:


ld.so:
  ldso
  libdl1-altdev

libc:
  libc5
  libc5-altdev
  libc5-altdbg

libdb:
  libdb1
  libdb1-altdev

libg++27: #322854
  libg++27
  libg++27-altdev

regex: #318198
  libregex0
  libregex0-altdev

termcap-compat:
  termcap-compat

altgcc: #323139
  altgcc


Regards,
Roger

-- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.