Re: The future (dependencies on libc{5,6,6.1} &c)
Nikita Schmidt <cetus@snowball.ucd.ie> writes:
> I prefer that we rename our library package to libc6, unless Mike
> has some strong reason why it cannot be done. We'll run into
> problems with many recently built packages, which already depend on
> libc6.1 - well, we'll have to rebuild them.
The 6.1 isn't just an arbitrary number---it's the soname of the
library. We should keep the package name reflecting reality.
I realize that it's confusing, since it is 6.1 only on the alpha, and
I'll agree that ought not to have been done (it was done to accomodate
RedHat), but we shouldn't mangle it.
> As a temporary measure this idea is perfectly acceptable; much better
> than dummy packages. If I don't miss anything important.
What libc6 packages are still out there? Really, aren't we talking
about divorcing our packages from reality over a very insignificant
number of packages?
Mike.
--
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: