Re: Slink to potato upgrade
----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org>
To: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Slink to potato upgrade
> >I respect you greatly for packaging what is certainly one of the most
> >important, and most troublesome, packages in Debian. However, I'd like
to
> >know what to do about:
> >
> >libglib
> >elm
>
> No one has figured out *why* elm breaks (and if it is even glibc's
> fault). No one even bothered to tell me glib broke or in what manner
> it broke.
FWIW, glibc2.1 broke libgc4 for awhile, due to a dependency on internal
symbols. While this was certainly libgc4's "fault," and is already fixed in
the current libgc4 which has since been uploaded, what about a binary-only
package which has a similar problem?
I realize that Debian is primarily about free software, but Debian users
sometimes do want to use third party software which is not part of Debian at
all, alien RPMs and so forth. Will we take the position that if such
software breaks on Debian, it's not our problem, in other words, that we
don't care to ensure binary-compatibility with RedHat, Caldera or any other
Linux?
In sum, I'm in favor of changing the soname, and encouraging other distros
to do the same with glibc2.1.
Reply to: