Re: libc6 policy in unstable
> > Yes, they should be. When do we remove all the non-libc6 packages, though?
>
> I'm not entirely certain I see why we need to remove libc5 packages from
> the system for Debian 2.0. While I agree that the primary packages should
> really be glibc, I don't see how a few lib5 packages are going to hurt the
> distribution
Well, they won't hurt much, but they would:
- make memory usage less favourable (if you're running a mix of
libc5/libc6 binaries, you'll have both in memory).
- make Debian look less attractive (We wouldn't appear in the
list of distributions that are fully libc6).
As more-or-less automatic compilation of packages is now possible,
we could always (at some point) just write a script and automatically
convert all remaining libc5 packages to libc6 -- the ones that don't
compile obviously have bugs in them, that can then be reported, thus
forcing the maintainer to do something about it. But I don't think there
will be many of those packages.
--
joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
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: