Re: Once again: libc6 packages compatibility etc...
> > > > > If I follow Brian's idea I will have the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > libgmp1_1.3.2-6 libc5 version
> > > > > libgmp1-dev_1.3.2-6
> > > > > and
> > > > > gmp2_2.0.2-3 libc6 version
> > > > > gmp-dev_2.0.2-3
> > > > >
> > > > > These can both reside in the libs section without confusion, since they
> > > > > will clearly be in seperate portions of the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't this remove the need for the g and alt identifier strings?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but I think it would be a bad idea to deviate from -altdev at
> > > > this point. Telling users some "altdev" packages use -altdev while
> > > > some others use -dev would probably only confuse them more than they
> > > > already will be.
> > >
> > > This would be a much bigger problem with a released distribution. Since
> > > hamm is still "unstable", only developers and other suckers for punishment
> > > are currently using it.
> >
> > But there are packages whose name doesn't begin with "lib" (for example
> > xlib6, xpm4) so those can't use the newly proposed method.
>
> That's a good point. It would be nice to have a consistant naming
> mechnanism, though. Can anybody think of a way around this, or is
> it insurmountable?
Thinking about this a bit more...
To be consistant, the proper name (using the idea above) for "xlib6" would
then be just "x6" (and "libc6" would be just "c6") since the idea was
to remove "lib" from the name as it is redundant.
This still leaves the problem with "xpm4", however.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian GNU/Linux! Search it at http://insite.verisim.com/search/debian/simple
--
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: