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:
pgpHNzEmo3iwa.pgp
Description: PGP signature