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

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

> >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 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: