Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 188.8.131.52a-2) ?
Santiago Vila wrote:
> I wrote
> > I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system
> > upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is
> > slink). These packages (xcolmix and xplot) have this depends
> > line:
> > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 184.108.40.206a-2)
> > Now I built an all-potato chroot environment and notice that the potato
> > xlib6g-dev package creates a depency line:
> > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1)
> > Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev
> > and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it
> > doesn't matter?
> As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't think it does matter.
> As a general rule, as long as you can run the result in potato without
> using oldlibs packages, it should be fine.
Okay, I'm just cautious about `should run'. I guess I compiled
agaisnt glib2.1 such that any problems that might crop up would
be found and fixed before the freeze.
> BTW: If libforms0.88 is actually the "current" libforms in potato, then
> you could have even avoided completely the upgrade of libc6 and compilers.
> It seems your package should run ok on a potato machine even if it was
> compiled on a slink system.
libforms0.88 was the "current" libforms in potato when I posted
this, but now it's libforms0.89 but that is drop in compatible
with 0.88. In fact the 0.89 packages creates the compatibility
./usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so.0.88 -> libforms.so.0.89
so recompiles against libforms.so.0.89 aren't strictly necessary.
Thanks for your answer.
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/