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