Re: Can we upload binaries using libc6 to hamm yet?
Guy Maor <email@example.com> writes:
> David Engel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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.
> It seems to me that it's little extra work to provide libc5-dev and
> libc6alt-dev if you already intend to provide libc5alt-dev and
> I think you underestimate the number in Thomas' situation. Many of us
> do important, non-Debian, work on our machines and don't want to risk
> breaking the ability to compile. I think many people will install a
> libc6alt-dev package rather than libc6-dev and libc5alt-dev packages
> simply to avoid the risk of the unknown.
I have to say I agree with david. I'd rather have a gcc package,
providing the standard gcc front-end under a different name using two
shellscripts gcc-libc5 and gcc-libc6 at installation time one of them
gets linked to gcc according to the installers choice.
The library locations should be : libc6 as standard, libc5 as
alternative. Thus people wouldn't even know that the standard libs
have changed using gcc-libc5 while the maintainer (and anyone else
wanting to) could use the new libs with gcc-libc6.
This is _far_ less work than providing packages without end, generates
less confusion and fixes the path structure on a debian system.
Helmut Geyer Helmut.Geyer@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
public PGP key available : finger email@example.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .