Re: ongoing support for bo/libc5
> But the more I think about it, the more I believe
> that there will be a large number of router admins out there who won't be
> jumping to upgrade to hamm.
There is a mechanism installed to allow this kind of thing...
You can compile your packages for hamm; this is a good thing because hamm is
about to be the stable release. In addition, you can, if you want, also compile
it for bo and have it be in a place called bo-unstable.
Most developers are busy enough with their own events plus maintaining for
hamm/2.0. For this reason, it's considered absolutely optional to put any
package into bo-unstable.
> Q: Is anyone else faced with parallel development/release for libc5 and
> libc6? Do they distribute different packages, or the same package with
> different rev numbers? Is there a point at which SPI/Debian is going to
> completely discontinue support for bo?
Yes; they distribute different packages if they contain machine dependencies, or just one if the package is totally independant of architecture, which they would be if, say, they were text files, shell scripts or interpreter scripts; note that libc4 support still remains in oldlibs.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com