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

Re: ELF conversion (was Re: 1.0 issues: FSSTND compliance & preparation for a.out abolishment)

> > This elf-available bit is too klugy for me.  Why can't we just use
> > dpkg's standard dependency checking?  Isn't that what it's there for?
> `Depends' lines won't stop you replacing an earlier version of a
> package whose dependencies were satisfied with a newer one shose
> dependencies aren't.

What!  Are you telling me that dependencies aren't checked when
already installed packages are replaced?  I suppose this explains why
dpkg doesn't squawk at me when I temporarily downgrade ld.so for
testing when I know the elf-* packages explciitly require a
semi-current version.

> This is necessary so that you can install or upgrade your system in
> any order.  However, what we need to do here is to enforce an order.

I'm sorry, but this not only seems plainly wrong, but can be very
dangerous as well.  I thought the whole point of having dependencies
was so that users had to install in the proper order.  How do you
expect them to know what order to do things when order is required?
Word of mouth?

> > Next, we build a new release of libc that moves everything under /usr
> > to /usr/i486-linuxaout.  This is the standard directory to put a.out
> > stuff in after switching to ELF.  
> Yuk.  Why can't we use a sensible location, such as /usr/lib/a.out/*
> (and /usr/bin/a.out/* if we need it) ?  See what the FSSTND has to say
> about things that think they need a directory right under /usr.

Because $prefix/i486-linuxaout is the standard directory where the GNU
development tools expect to find a.out files on an ELF system.  I
don't know if the FSSTND has even addressed this yet, but I'm
confident they would sanction it, at least as a short term solution
during the transition.

David Engel                        Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com                      1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081

Reply to: