Re: libc6 vs libc6.1
Nikita Schmidt <email@example.com> 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
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .