[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> writes:

> Actually, this isn't true. Windows 2000 should still run software written
> for DOS 2.0, but Debian doesn't provide libc4, needed to run much
> more recent software.

A flawed comparison. Linux kernels up to 2.2.x (and beyond, I guess
but have not checked) will be quite able to run your a.out binary
(unless you configured that out of your kernel, of course). If it is
compiled statically (as all DOS software was), you won't need any libc
for it, either. Modern Windows software usually comes with all needed
DLLs included (and an installer to handle this mess).

FWIW, there is a class of DOS software that will not run under any
real OS (due to it needing real mode), unless you use emulation
(bochs, vmware).

libc4 and libc5 will probably be available for free download for a
long time to come (as well as linux-0.99p15). That does not
necessarily mean that Debian has to support them, though.

> > Your fear is based on the FUD that removing it from woody makes it
> > completely unavailable for users, and mysteriously removes it from existing
> > systems. 
> ? This is a strawman. I can't think of anyone who believes this. 

Fears were repeatedly aired that one could no longer run legacy
software on Debian. (I didn't witness that anyone deliberately
nourished this fears, though - so the FUD claims are IMHO
insubstantated.) Anyway, it's only true that one will no longer be
able to easily install legacy software onto new systems (you'd have to
install libc5 from sources other than Debian, which is more hassle).

Old systems are of course not affected. If you can't risk breaking
your legacy software, you will just have to live with Potato.

> > Even upgrading to post-potato distributions will not cause libc5 to be
> > uninstalled, or your libc5 applications to be broken.
> Are you promsing that? If so, then why not leave it in? If it's
> going to take too much maintainance to leave it in, then it's probably going 
> to break without that maintaince. i.e. upgrading to post-potato distributions
> is probably going to cause you libc5 applications to be broken.

IMHO orphaning is enough as a first step, and removal is not needed.


Attachment: signature.ng
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: