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

Re: The future (dependencies on libc{5,6,6.1} &c)

On 29 Sep 1997, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:

> Better to fix the real breakage---any packages that don't have
> dynamically generated dependencies---than modify the libc packages to
> report erroneous information.  Ditto for the other libc5 stuff.

I agree with this.  The only packages that are really "broken" are that
way because they are still using the older packaging format with
hard-coded dependencies.  I think we should fix these no matter what.

Also, the few packages that were just compiled under libc6 but are already
in the new package format should be repackaged anyway to eliminate the
stumbles.  If someone has some time, please make a list for me as to which
packages need to be fixed.  I have the list from my site, but am unsure of
what packages on master have this problem.

> That might be feasible, but mostly we should just get diffs in the bug
> system.  That's worked fine for me.

I intend on submitting a boatload of diffs via the bug tracking system
very soon.  I need to clean up a few of my patches, but will try to get
about 10 per week done starting this week.

> Once I am at my new job (and after my PII arrives), I intend to take
> the UDB into work and turn it into an "open" compilation platform (via
> fakeroot), so hopefully developers can recompile stuff themselves.

That would be great :)  That would give us all two computers to compile on


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: