Re: Can we upload binaries using libc6 to hamm yet?
David Engel wrote:
>> > - keep both at hand as .deb files, and install the one you need
>
>This is what I had intended. Yes, I know it will be a pain to switch
>development environments between libc5 and libc6, but it will only be
>inflicted on developers. That pain may also be a good thing in that
>it may encourage developers to concentrate on libc6.
So much for multiuser systems. Having to build as root is bad enough;
breaking everybody else's compilations in the meantime is much worse.
>> You need a different gcc (or at least a different specs file) to
>> compile. At this time, the new gcc package does not support compiling
>> using libc5. This could be generated, however.
>
>This is not true. You can use command-line options to get the new gcc
>to do the right thing. In other words, we only need one gcc package.
But we need two debian/rules, right?
Also, suppose I have foo-2.1-1 sources (bugfix), and I want to release
it to both frozen and unstable.
What naming convention should I use? I can't very well upload two
foo_2.1-1_i386.changes and foo_2.1-1_i386.deb files simultaneously.
foo_2.1-1_i386-libc6.changes or .deb, maybe?
Or should I just release the libc5 version as foo_2.1-1, and the libc6
version as foo_2.1-2? Argh.
--
Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet.
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: