On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:25:22AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > 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). Ahh. And any old support isn't possible since it'd have to be built against glibc2.1, which means glibc2.1 would have to be available for woody, which it won't be since glibc2.2 is. So has anyone started filing serious bugs against all those packages that need a rebuild? A rough count [0] seems to indicate a fair number of packages are affected: alpha: 142 arm: 189 hurd-i386: 17 i386: 175 m68k: 260 mips: 5 powerpc: 195 sparc: 156 Cheers, aj [0] grep-dctrl 'libstdc++' | grep-dctrl -v 'libstdc++-dev' | grep-dctrl -v 'libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2' | grep-dctrl -v 'libstdc++2.10-dev' | grep "^Package:" | wc -l -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpaff4dnB4mW.pgp
Description: PGP signature