On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 05:51:51PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 02:30:54PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 01:19:19PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > > > > > I think we should move libc5 out of woody very soon. A lot of very old > > > cruft and hacks (ldso) are still around because of this. If we can get rid > > > of libc5, ldso will become obsoleted by libc6 2.2.x (since it contains a > > > very good ldconfig and ldd, and ld-linux.so.1 wont be needed anymore). It > > > also means that nss1 compat modules will not beed needed, this again > > > reducing the amount of cruft/hacks in the default build. > > > > Though I can see why libc5 seems unnecessary and outdated, if removed, some > > users will be surprised to find nonworking binaries. A quick ldd through my > > /usr/local/bin shows several programs depending on libc5 which I couldn't > > otherwise recompile. l3enc, l3dec, mp3enc would suddenly stop working. > > Well, you fail to see that removing it from woody, does not remove it from > their systems. Existing systems with the libc5 package installed will > simply notice that is marked obsolete. Ah ok so would ldso be obsoleted as well. In which case installing libc6 over the obsolete ldso would fail as it would try overwriting ldd. Also, I don't believe l3dec exists for libc6 which is a fairly well used program. Correct me if I'm wrong. My only point was what harm is there in keeping it in Debian if an existing user's installation won't break by keeping it? Cheers, Shane -- Shane Wegner: shane@cm.nu Personal website: http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
Attachment:
pgpJ79YJ111do.pgp
Description: PGP signature