[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

I don't know about what dependencies you're talking about. If you're
talking about "Build-Depends: libc6 (>= x.x.x)" renaming doesn't help
anything. It should be 
"Build-Depends: libc6 (>= x.x.x) | netbsd-libc (>= x.x.x)".

I'm also thinking about porting glibc to *BSD. I think that would
solve very much problems, as a lot of programs just expect to have
glibc installed. A lot of kernel-specific things are already fixed
because we want them to compile on Debian GNU/Hurd. But the Hurd also
uses glibc, I expect really much trouble with that. Most people just
don't know how to write portable or don't care about it. I don't know
if I'm the only one thinking about porting glibc.

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgpq2qvKEdAGJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: