[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. 

Well, with the current setup, a new libc6 package can depend on libfoog,
and the old libc5 package depends on libfoo.

> 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.

But that's much more difficult with your version: now all packages needing
"libfoo" just depend on "libfoo", and I seen no way to specify that
"libfoo_libc6version" cannot be installed when there are old packages
installed that depend on an old libfoo version (unless you want to
put a whole lot of Confilicts in the library, but that's really difficult
to get right). For the current setup, we get it for free.

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

We already have that for libraries, when we upgrade to different sonames.
And in this case, although the soname doesn't change, the library is
not usable for the libc5 programmes.

> 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.

That's 
 -the same amount of name-space pollution
 -although it will look better in the future, it looks worse in the
  past. Yes, I ageree that it's better to have things look bad in the
  past and good in the future, but the point is: we cannot change the
  past. And the simple fackt is, that the past (also called "bo" or "hamm")
  used libfoo-dev for the names. So, there's no way we can change bo/hamm
  any more.

-- 
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: