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

Re: RFC: library conventions for libc5 and libc6 in hamm Take 4

On Jun 20, Helmut Geyer wrote
:  1. Run time packages
:     A package providing a shared library has to support both C library
:     packages, libc5 and libc6 based libraries. This must be done using
:     two Debian packages, each depending on the correct C library
:     package.
:     The package naming convention currently suggests to name these
:     packages as follows. Some packages (mostly from base) may use
:     locations in /lib. 
:        based on  | package name | library location
:        --------------------------------------------
:          libc6   |   libfoog [1]| /usr/lib/libfoo.so.<ver>
:          libc5   |   libfoo     | /usr/lib/libc5-compat/libfoo.so.<ver> [2]

Why not simply include both libraries in one package.  I'd think, the
overhead can be ignored.  And package version in the future will have libc6 only.
But it must be ensured, that the package w/o libc5 compat can't be
installed as long as there are packages depending on libc5.  IMHO the
dependency system should support it.

The libfoo/libfoog approach seems a little bit ugly.  It's pure name
space pollution ;-)

:   2.  Development packages
:       based on  | package name        | hierarchy locations
:       ---------------------------------------------------------------
:       libc6     | libfoog-dev         | /usr/{lib,include}
:       libc5     | libfoo-altdev       | /usr/<a>-linuxlibc1/{lib,include}

Ok, same with namespace pollution.  Why not calling the ``normal''
(libc6) dev package libfoo-dev and the ``old'' is libfoo-5dev or
similar.  Again, it can disappear somewhen in future.

... but probably my thought are not very clear or on the other hand
_too_ much simple.... :-/

email : heiko@lotte.sax.de heiko@debian.org heiko@sax.de
pgp   : A1 7D F6 7B 69 73 48 35  E1 DE 21 A7 A8 9A 77 92 
finger: heiko@sax.sax.de                heiko@debian.org

Attachment: pgpSNcbSBXZqZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: