Bug#183143: libc-udeb: Should provide libc6
At 5 Mar 2003 11:13:25 +0100,
Sebastian Ley wrote:
>
> * GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > libc6 is for arm, hppa, i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc.
> > libc6.1 is for alpha and ia64.
> > libc0.3 is for hurd-i386.
> > libc1 is for freebsd-i386.
> >
> > So, is libc6-udeb appropriate for all archs? Or should we use
> > libc6.1-udeb for ia64 and alpha? I don't know about udeb, should we
> > change your wishlist just now?
>
> Oh, I didn't know this...
>
> The practice should be to just add the "-udeb" string to the
> corresponding deb package name. So it should be named libc6.1-udeb for
> alpha and ia64.
>
> Same holds for #183143: libc6-udeb should Provide: libc6 and for alpha
> it should be Provides: libc6.1
>
> Th reason, why the soname number must be included in the udeb name is
> the same why we include it in regular packages. When doing a
> netinstall, udebs can be loaded from the archive at install time. When
> there is no way to distingiush a libc, that is binary incompatible to
> the programs on the install disk, we will have a problem.
Hmm, I don't know the detail of udeb framework - well, it seems we
have to change -udeb package name for each archs. But... I don't
still know that this udeb naming framework is really well-thought-out
things? Are there any standard rule of udeb package naming scheme? I
would like to know it before changing package name.
It might be rapid to send a patch for glibc udeb if you already have.
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: