Ponderings...
After looking again at the much heralded "zircon" problem, I have two
things on my mind....
Since zircon is an arch-indep package, we really can't do much about it on
our end (installed across the board automatically). HOWEVER, I looked at
the source and it is just a collection of tcl scripts with some tk stuff
included also. Why this package is at all dependent on libc at all is
beyond me (the tcl and tk packages should handle that).
On the other hand, this brings up a bigger (and more unpopular)
question...should libc6.1 now provide libc6 on the Alpha? Since we've
pretty much phased out ALL packages that were reliant on what we used to
use as "libc6" and it's effectively dead, could libc6.1 have a "Provides:
libc6" added to it's control file?
Any thoughts? Mike, I know we've been over this, but considering how long
it's been since we've had libc6.1 now, it should be safe....providing that
we make sure dependencies for anything compiled still say libc6.1....
C
Reply to: