Re: Dependancies on libc
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:24:04PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> 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 suggest creating a virtual package called "libc" or something similar. Set
libc6 to provide it. Then, my freebsd-libc4 package, and the netbsd-libc
package can provide it also, and source dependacies are fine.
Or what you suggest can be done also, for packages that need specific versions.
I think having the virtual package could be convenient for other reasons.
> 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.
Feel free. I looked at it, and I think I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. It
would be a huge help, though. Even if you're successful, I think we'll need
to have the BSD libc available for the kernel specific utilities.
As for portable code, I think that's something that needs to change. Portable
code tends to be better code. I'd rather see some of the Debian tools like apt
become more portable than have a glibc port, because I think making those
programs more portable will most likely improve them.
Reply to: