[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: JOEL BAKER, STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO DEPEND ON LIBC-DEV *INSTEAD* OF LIBC6-DEV



On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:43:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Changes:
>  zlib (1:1.1.4-6) unstable; urgency=low
>  .
>    * Depend on libc-dev rather than libc6-dev (closes: #164649).
> 
> So of course this package is going to be uninstallable now, just like openssl
> was a few days ago.
> 
>  openssl (0.9.6g-8) unstable; urgency=low
>  . 
>    * fix libc6 depends. Only needed for i386 (closes: #163701)
>    * remove SHLIB section for bsds from Configure (closes: #163585)
> 
>  openssl (0.9.6g-9) unstable; urgency=low
>  .
>    * fix typo in i386 libc6 depend (sigh) (closes: #163848)
> 
> DO NOT DECLARE SIMPLE DEPENDENCIES ON PURE VIRTUAL PACKAGES.
> 
> In Debian GNU/Linux, "libc-dev" is a pure virtual package.  It doesn't
> matter if "libc-dev" is a real package on GNU/Hurd or *BSD.  You will
> break Debian GNU/Linux if you tell people to change "libc6-dev"
> dependencies to "libc-dev".
> 
> WHAT YOU SHOULD DO INSTEAD:
> 
> Depends: libc6-dev | libc-dev
> 
> This also helps the Alpha and IA-64 GNU/Linux ports, where the dev
> package for GNU LibC is "libc6.1-dev".
> 
> DEPENDING ON A VIRTUAL PACKAGE IS FINE, BUT YOU SHOULD *ALWAYS* SPECIFY
> A REAL PACKAGE ALTERNATIVE, AND IT SHOULD *ALWAYS* COME FIRST.
> 
> REAL BEFORE VIRTUAL.
> 
> Learn it, live it, love it.
> 
> Oh yeah, by the way...
> 
> I WOULDN'T HAVE TO SHOUT LIKE THIS IF PACKAGE MAINTAINERS COULD BE
> BOTHERED TO PERFORM EVEN THE MEAGER TESTING THAT "dpkg -i" ENTAILS.
> 
> TEST BEFORE YOU UPLOAD.

1) As said on IRC... I stand corrected, and will attempt to avoid
encouraging mistakes in the future (once I can hear again).

2) Is this a libc6 special case, or would it be just as acceptable to list,
say, "libc12-dev | libc-dev"?

3) If the answer to #2 is 'no', can someone explain to me, in private, why
pure virtual dependancies are bad, then? They seem like the obvious answer,
so if they're not, I'd like to understand why. (note #1, above, and that
this is a request for enlightenment, not an argument).
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgpkoqLfFngJ5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: