[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

libc6 policy


Can anybody explain me (Mike?), is there any reason behind naming the
libc package 'libc6.1'?  I understand that there might be historical
reasons like cistron's base or whatever, which might have caused libc6 to
carry pre-2.0 beta of glibc.  Now that glibc-1.xx is far behind, maybe
it is better to rename libc6.1 to libc6 for better compatibility with
the main Debian stream?  For example, libc6-doc is a binary independent
package, so it is not a good idea to make it binary dependent just
because of a single dependency (although I personally don't see any
reason why it should depend on libc6).

Another example is shared library packages, which tend to hardcode their
dependencies, for otherwise dpkg-shlibdeps would make them depend on

I don't think that the number of dependencies we have on libc6.1 now is
really a big problem preventing us from this step.  Anyway, in any case
--force-depends will be our favourite dpkg option for a while.

Are there any other problems why we cannot change libc6.1 to libc6?



TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: