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

Re: libc6 vs libc6.1

Nikita Schmidt <cetus@snowball.ucd.ie> writes:

> > I may submit a bug report against the glibc package: I think the
> > glibc soname for alpha can be changed safely from libc6.1 to libc6
> > without breaking anything.
> Changing the soname will break binary compatibility between Debian
> and non-Debian Alpha systems, because 6.1 is the official soname for
> glibc2 on Alpha.  When glibc2 is built off the normal, unpatched GNU
> source tree on Linux/Alpha, it is assigned 6.1.
> According to the Debian policy, the package name should reflect the
> soname exactly, so it must remain libc6.1.

That's fair enough, but could libc6.1-dev not Provide: libc6-dev?
That way there would be no need for nasty alpha-specific hacks to the
debian/rules and debian/control of every package that depends 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: