Re: Can we upload binaries using libc6 to hamm yet?
On Apr 23, Guy Maor wrote
> The ideal solution would have two versions each of libc5-dev and
> libc6-dev - libc5-dev, libc5alt-dev, libc6-dev, and libc6alt-dev.
> Appropriate conflicts would allow installations of only one -dev and
> one alt-dev.
> The only difference between the -dev and alt-dev is the location of
> the files. The alt-dev packages would install the headers in a
> seperate directory, /usr/machinename , and seperate machine
> definitions in /usr/lib/gcc-lib. The alt-dev packages would also
> provide gcc wrappers which set this different machine definition in
I've come to agree that the current libc5-based -dev packages should
be rebuilt with their files in alternative locations for hamm so
developers can make bug-fixes to bo without having to swap a bunch of
packages. However, I'm not convinced that we should also support
libc5-based -dev packages with their files in old locations nor
libc6-based -dev packages with their files in alternative locations.
> Most developers would then have libc6-dev and libc5alt-dev installed.
> They would compile libc6 packages by default, but could compile libc5
> packages by setting PATH so that the /usr/machinename/bin appeared
> before /usr/bin.
> Some developers, like Thomas, would install libc5-dev and
> libc6alt-dev. They would compile libc5 packages by default and have
> to change their PATH to compile libc6 packages.
I can sympathize with Thomas' situation, but let's be realistic. How
many other developers will be in similar situations? I doubt the
number will justify the work required to build the extra packages or
the confusion they will cause.
David Engel ODS Networks
email@example.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .