Re: Building against testing [was Re: "Recompile with libc6 from testing" <-- doesn't help i think!]
There's no need to Cc me.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:47:01PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 07:17, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It'd also mean that
> > essentially nothing would ever be autobuilt with the new glibc's until
> > we did a release, which would seem a bit risky, for non-i386 arches.
> Wouldn't things get autobuilt against the new glibc once that glibc
> moved to testing? But then again, if *that* ever happened, we wouldn't
> be talking about how horribly broken testing is ;-)
No -- unless I misunderstand, Santiago was proposing compiling with
the *oldest* libraries possible, so that partial upgrades will upgrade
the minimum amount of stuff possible. For libc6, if you always compile
with the stable libc, then you'll work with any of the stable, testing
or unstable libc's and you don't have to worry about upgrading libc6 or
libc6-dev or locales, just to get a new version of $random_package.
> [ Seriously, isn't this whole mess about glibc, now on day one of
> five? ]
Oh, trust me, we'll have similar problems again repeatedly -- we certainly
did for woody. You'd think glibc was a complicated package or something.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''