Re: Obsolete packages
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:55:15AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Er, so? We don't guarentee we can build everything in woody with stuff in
> woody in an automated fashion.
>
> Include the binary from potato, and whatever source is required to keep
> RMS happy and don't worry about it.
Things can be rebuilt without libstdc++2.10, since libstdc++2.10-dev
pulls in libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2. There is no need for extra source.
> We go through this every release, and we always do this. We *MUST* ship
> the usual set of libsdtdc++'s because commercial apps, and apps from other
> distributions use them, not to mention us :P
Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to keep the old
libstdc++ around for compilation? It means it has to be built on potato
so it can compile and link with glibc 2.1, which basiclaly means, it
cannot be built on woody without some special setup (like a chroot, or a
seperate libc6-compat package). Do you really want to have all this
hacking? I don't.
As for supporting "other dists", a) other dists are using the new glibc
anyway, aswell as the new gcc, b) if they are using the new stdc++-v3,
we can't support them anyway, c) if we support their older binaries,
they can just install the stdc++ from potato, or recompile.
As for older commercial apps, they can still get the .deb from potato.
As for why thus was done, talk to James.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: