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

Re: Slink packages that depend on libstdc++2.8



I aggree, put libstdc++2.8 in oldlibs or such and start filing bug
reports, infact, I may start filing them myself when I get the time..

Zephaniah E, Hull..

On Thu, Oct 01, 1998 at 11:51:02AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 09:36:54PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > > libstdc++2.9 is the only libstdc++ in slink.
> > > 
> > > There are still many, many packages that depend on libstdc++2.8, 
> > > including such trifles as dpkg and apt. 
> > > 
> > > I recommend libstdc++2.8 be reuploaded into slink; there's no
> > > reason for it not to be there for backwards compatibility.
> > 
> > The proper solution is rebuilding the "libstdc++2.8 dependent" packages
> > with libstdc++2.9. As Guy said, without a libstdc++2.8 package in slink
> > the mantainers will have an "additional push" to upload a new version
> > of their packages.
> 
> The initial question was: Should libstdc++2.8-dev be available in slink?
> (Note the -dev). We seem to agree that it should not, but it seems that we
> mixed this discussion with the discussion about the library itself (not
> the -dev).
> 
> I think libstdc++2.8 should be available in slink, for the same reason
> libc5 oldlibs are (smooth upgrades, backwards compatibility with
> non-Debian software, etc.).
> 
> However, I'm in favour of submitting Severity: important bugs against any
> package depending on the old lib.
> 
> -- 
>  "e63a890dd837909c88c8d7cc32fac41f" (a truly random sig)
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

Attachment: pgps4W96TWlje.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: