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

Re: iconv availability

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:26:56AM +0100, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:20:11AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > If that includes /usr/bin/iconv, then excellent. (Sorry if I wasn't
> > clear - that was what I meant originally, not iconv().) If the package
> > name is just 'iconv' then I'll depend on that for the BSDs somehow.
> If iconv is something separated from glibc, but is included in glibc
> build on Linux, wouldn't it be more clean to have glibc provide: iconv
> and have a separated package for BSD (instead of using conditionnal
> dependencies) ?
> (i may be totally wrong, i only ask for my curiosity...)

Oops. I think my reply to Colin was private (WRT the iconv packages);
if anyone else cares, I can repost it publically. As for the glibc and
provides drill - it is, in theory, possible to want to link libiconv
even on GNU libc-based arches. I can't think of an occurance of this,
but it is theoretically possible.

Mostly, changing glibc is fairly intrusive, for something that is fairly
little gain; packages that need iconv can simply add a Build-Depends:
libiconv2 [netbsd-i386] (in the simplest form; really, there are more
arches to list there, and you might need other packages).
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>

Attachment: pgp0DwF4KsAj2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: