Re: glibc 2.1 and compatibility (Was: slink is gone, goals for potato?
- To: Debian developers list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.1 and compatibility (Was: slink is gone, goals for potato?
- From: Joel Klecker <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 04:46:24 -0800
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199903031225.NAA09057@ezili.sis.pasteur.fr>
- References: <email@example.com> (Joel Klecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>'s message of Wed, 03 Mar 1999 01:41:55 PST)
At 13:25 +0100 1999-03-03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>Will we have at least a libc6-dev which can coexist with libc6.1-dev
>so I don't have to run two machines to make my packages?
That is impossible.
In hamm, there was two environments (-dev and -altdev) to develop
for libc6 and >libc5. Why would it be impossible for potato? "I
have no time to do it" is a >valid reason but "impossible" is not,
unless you explain.
There is no soname difference, the GNU architecture is not different.
It *is* impossible.
Note by the way that there is no convincing me otherwise on going
forward with glibc 2.1 in potato. You are just going to have to live
Joel Klecker (aka Espy) <URL:http://web.espy.org/>
Debian GNU/Linux PowerPC -- <URL:http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/>