Re: Debian target audience
Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@is5.nyu.edu> writes:
> > > The problem of having both libc5 and libc6 run-time libraries is minor,
> > > the main one is that those stuck with libc5-dev cannot use other
> > > newly-available versions of *libraries* from hamm.
> >
> > How do you mean? You can install the *libraries* just fine, it's just
> > the development versions that fail to install.
>
> That's exactly what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear.
>
> >
> > And even then, why not install lib5-altdev? Then there is no problem
> > whatsoever.
> >
>
> I am sorry to say, but you are wrong. Even on this list there were
> several postings regarding this matter. There are several known
> problems and who knows how many unknown. You just can't afford to
> experiment with "production" system this way. Anyway, I could take some
> burden on myself to compile libc5 counterparts, but on my 486DX2/66 with
> 2k/sec connection it would take years.
>
Nearly all of the problems mentioned here are _not_ problems with the
-altdev packages but with the transition period while not all packages
use this standard.
There is a single problem with utmp, that will cause buggy (!)
programs to have problems, i.e. programs that do _not_ use the C
library functions to access utmp.
Other than that there was the locale problem that has been fixed (at
least for me) using libc 5.4.33 and glibc 2.0.4.
For me these are not enough reasons to support a stable tree for
libc5-only when we have fixed our transition problems fro hamm.
Furthermore it is _far_ too early to talk about what we'll be doing
when hamm is released as we first have to see how many problems there
will be with a hamm system (currently there are next to no packages
using the hamm conventions).
Helmut
--
Helmut Geyer Helmut.Geyer@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
public PGP key available : finger geyer@saturn.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
--
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: