Re: glibc 2.2 and gcc (Was Re: something completely different)
In article >Pine.LNX.4.21.0008031808470.8948-100000@spawn.hockeyfiend.com>,
Christopher C. Chimelis <chris@debian.org> wrote:
>Hmmm...well, changing Alpha's libc package name would involve the same
>situation as if we all changed to libc6.2, at least on alpha. We'd have
>to conflict/replace AND provide libc6.1 (to cope with older packages
>and/or non-Debian-offered packages, such as the compilers that I helped to
>package for Compaq).
Can't you simply add a dummy package called lib6.1 that Depends: or
probably even Predepends: on libc6. It will take a few releases before you
can get rid of it but it would get the Alpha back in line with the
other archs. And there's not ever going to be a real libc6.1 anyway.
Mike.
--
Cistron Certified Internetwork Expert #1. Think free speech; drink free beer.
Reply to: