Re: Dependancies on libc
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> Having run into a few packages, now, which have dependancies on specific
> GNU libc versions (or rather, libc versions, when all that the packaging
> system understands is libc == GNU libc), which compiled just fine under
> the NetBSD libc, I come to the following conclusion:
>
> We should request that a provision be made for desginating which libc is
> required, from the developer/policy community. As a starting point, I'll
> toss out one possible resolution:
>
> Rename the libc-* packages to libc-gnu-* (or gnu-libc-*), and use Provides
> headers to "fake" the old names, for a period of time (IE, to allow a grace
> period in which packages which depend on libc can change their dependancy
> listing). Other libc packages would then be libc-netbsd-* or netbsd-libc-*
> in a similar fashion, allowing proper dependancy declarations for any libc
> packages which might end up being part of Debian.
>
> Any thoughts? Comments? Spitwads? Is anyone who is actually a formal and
> qualified Debian developer
Hi.
> willing to take up this cross,
Hehe, maybe when we're quite a bit further along. Renaming libc6 to
gnu-libc6 isn't holding up debian-bsd development, so I wouldn't worry
about it at this time.
> or will it be left to us lowly users? :)
There's no reason you can't get the ball rolling, if you like. Post to
debian-devel, or if you feel ready, write up a formal policy amendment
proposal and send it to the BTS against pseudo-package "debian-policy"
(and probably announce it on debian-devel, too). See the archived
bugreports for package "debian-policy" for examples.
--
_ivan
Reply to: