Re: PLEASE READ: egcs issues
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 07:51:36PM -0500, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > I don't understand. Why should we hold up our development solely to let
> > RedHat users run binaries in .deb packages? It makes no sense to me.
>
> Three reasons:
> 1. The Linux community SHOULD work together to provide consistency. Alot
> of work has been done towards this effect already.
Certainly.
> 2. There already was an i386 issue regarding this where the same
> conclusion was drawn: compatibility can often be a key towards winning
> over users of other distributions.
Certainly there too. So we hold up the distro to get the fixed compiler in.
But I don't see why we need to hold it up so that recompiled .debs get in.
> 3. On the Alpha especially where RH is the dominant distribution right
> now, sometimes, binaries are only available that may need to be used
> on both distributions. As it is, I doubt any of us really want to
I don't think that RedHat people want/need to use .debs, just as I don't
want/need to use RPMs. Fixing the compiler is fine, but again, I fail to
see the advantage for us to hold things up to "fix" the debs.
> think that RH packages will run on Debian, but Debian's don't run
> anywhere else but on another Debian system.
If generic programs compiled by someone using Debian don't run elsewhere,
that could be a problem. So we fix the compiler. But hold up the distro
because other debs were compiled with that compiler? I don't think so.
> 4. (Ok, I'll add a fourth) Fixing this issue will definitely help
> users of older versions of slink that are upgrading. As it stands,
> if they upgrade dpkg, let's say, before libc6.1, it may break package
> installs of EVERYTHING.
This is probably the only good argument, but anyway, the dependencies should
take care of that, right?
Reply to: