Re: Can we upload binaries using libc6 to hamm yet?
On Apr 23, Thomas Koenig wrote
> >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.
A multiuser system probably shoudn't be running packages from
unstable. Wouldn't you be concerned about other instabilities
introduced?
> >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?
Except possibly in very rare cases, I would expect you would need
different rules files for libc5 and libc6 anyway. I don't see any
problem here.
> 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.
Are we still talking about packages with shared libraries? I am but
your message leads me to believe you aren't.
David
--
David Engel ODS Networks
david@sw.ods.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
--
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: