Re: Once again: libc6 packages compatibility etc...
David Engel <david@sw.ods.com> writes:
> It doesn't appear that RedHat is doing anything special. They haven't
> changed the names of any packages and also don't appear to have any
> equivalent to our -altdev packages.
Binary incompatibility between Redhat and Debian?
> This can be simply handled by having libfoo5g conflict with older
> versions of libfoo5.
Yes, you're right.
> > > Is it acceptable that libfoo5-altdev depends on libfoo5g-dev ?
> > > My reasons are:
> > > 1) The library manpages can be put in the libfoo5g-dev package.
> >
> > Yes, that's correct.
>
> No, this isn't good. It forces users to remove libfoo5-altdev when
> they want to install libfoo6(g)-dev.
I think the 5 was the version of the package, and wasn't supposed to
imply that it was linked against libc5.
In other words I was saying that it was ok if the libc5-linked-altdev
depended on the libc6-linked-dev. Of course you're right that the
libc5-linked-altdev shouldn't depend on the libc5-dev as the libc5-dev
and the libc6-dev should conflict.
Guy
--
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: