Re: Obsolete packages
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 05:19:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:12:27AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:32:50AM -0500, Jon Eisenstein wrote:
> > > Does anyone have any idea why libgnomeui33 and libstdc++2.1 are now listed
> > > as obsolete in unstable? I can't exactly file bugs against them, and many
> > > packages depend on each of these. I've been used to having 2 obselete
> > > packages listed for me (pine since it was locally compiled and fancylogin,
> > > since I'm not yet ready to move to francine), but why the sudden dropping
> > > of what seems to me to be fairly important libraries?
> > The libstdc++2.10 library is now libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2. All packages
> > compiled against latest libstdc++2.10-dev will depend on the -glibc2.2
> > package. The naming was chosen to avoid binary incompatibilities in
> > stdc++ when compiled against different glibc's (i.e. 2.1.3 in potato and
> > 2.2.x in woody/sid).
>
> Erm, so is it possible to just have a dummy libstdc++2.10 package in
> sid that just depends: on the -glibc2.2 package to satisfy dependencies?
Uh, no...notice I said binary incompatible. The -glibc2.2 package cannot
satisfy deps on libstdc++2.10. Else we would not have had to make the
change in the package name, and the gcc build would not have changed the
soname of the library (automagically).
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: