Re: The dependencies of libc6 must handle packages that break without db1
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 10:34:13AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:14:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:56:30AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Sounds like a good idea. Someone has already offered to do exactly this
> > > (and please don't use the "g" extension, it dates back to hamm, and
> > > serves no good purpose nowadays).
> >
> > There is one problem there in that there's already a libdb1 package
> > providing libdb.so.1.85.4, and although the differences are small I
> > think they're enough for it to be incompatible. The compatibility
> > package would have to be called something else.
>
> libdb1-glibc-compat?
The libdb1 package currently in unstable is for libc5 (didn't spot that
at first for some reason ...), so I thought this was exactly what the
'g' suffix was for? I've no particular religious convictions either way
though.
I have something that looks pretty close to a working package in my home
directory now. objdump output for its libdb.so.2 and the one from glibc
is almost identical, with the exception of a couple of missing sections
which I'm trying to figure out. I'll put it somewhere public for testing
when I've cleaned it up a bit more.
Is it going to be necessary to apply upgrade hacks to libdb.so.2 in
libc6's postinst, similar to those currently there for libdb.so.3?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: