Re: Debian-Alpha port ideas...please read (long)
On Wednesday, 29 Oct, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
>
> On a related note, what do you think we should do about the "g" libs?
> Part of me is heavily tempted to drop the "g" designation on the Alphas at
> least for compatibility, but I also realise that this is a generally bad
> idea since I can foresee other arch maintainers compiling their own stuff
> soon (via fakeroot) on the Alpha and making such decisions would
> complicate the process of getting that to happen.
My temptation to go this way is also very strong. Technically it is not
a problem to recognise architecture in debian/rules and name the binary
package accordingly. Anyway libc5-compat builds will have to be dealt
with depending on the architecture.
We'll have to stick with some "g" naming discrepancies forever (more
precisely, until the next glibc interface change), but I don't see any
problems with it.
The "g" problem only affects a limited set of currently existing
libraries (libraries which have never been built for libc5 won't get the
annoying "g"), and I think it is feasible for us just to fix (or break? :-)
all the "g" libs to free other arch maintainers from making tough
decisions under fakeroot.
I don't remember exactly, but the policy says something like that "g"
should only be added if there is a libc5 version of the library and the
package name of the libc6 version would be indistinguishable from the
libc5 version without this "g". In other words, if I'm not mistaken, it
is a policy suggestion for us to drop the annoying "g".
Nikita
--
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: