Re: glibc recompiling was Re: libc resolver problem solved (criticalbug)

[Nathan Myers <ncm@cantrip.org>]

"There is no problem in computer science that cannot be solved
by adding another level of indirection."

In this context "another level of indirection" would seem to 
mean adding a fake target ("dpkg-juju" or something) supplied by 
later library versions.  I wonder, though, if we aren't solving 
the wrong problem.  Yes, there is a particular range of library 
versions involved, but do the dependencies need to mention just 
those specifically?  In other words, maybe there are some library 
versions that would work -- older ones -- but so what?  It's 
simplest to require the newest one, and why not?  (If this is 
just wrong, please e-mail me privately, and let the idea die 
quietly.)

Incidentally, I hope we're going with the 2.1 glibc.  The glibc team's 
political release problems shouldn't prevent us from using the new 
less-buggy library in place of the current hacked-near-to-death 2.0.x
version.

Nathan Myers
ncm@cantrip.org