Re: Dependancies on libc
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:23:57PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Please CC me on all replies, even though I am (finally) subscribed. It
> works better with my mail sorting setup.
>
> 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.
>
> This is not true; GNU libc is called libc6 rather than libc. So there is
> no conflict. Also, the source packages don't generally have dependencies
> on libc6, only the compiled binary ones (as makes sense for dynamically
> linked Linux executables).
Quite a few of them have build dependacies on libc6-dev. That will need to be
changed. I suggest that we propose virtual packages. Actually, I'm thinking
both libc and kernel should be handled that way.
> By the way, in response to your question, I at least am an official Debian
> developer; are there any others on this project? (This is mainly a question
> out of curiosity rather than anything else.)
I also am a Debian developer. I believe there were a couple others lurking
here, and I have also seen posts by comitters for both NetBSD and FreeBSD.
Reply to: