[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 07:39:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:50:26PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> As a technicality, depending on libc-dev is wrong because there is
> always *one* *specific* real package that fulfills the proper
> relationship on each architecture.  

Uh, no, it's not, it's perfectly correct. That line in policy is only
there so dselect (originally) and apt-get can sensibly select the correct
default.  In dselect's case (I'm not sure about apt-get), it's not even
necessary if you've got one of the packages that provides the virtual
package at a higher priority than all the others -- that one will be
automatically chosen for you. In the past, this hasn't always been the
case, with both info and emacs19 being priority:standard and providing
info-browser, eg.

> You cannot substitute a different
> -dev package for libc6.1 on an alpha and get correct results.

There aren't (and should not be) different -dev packages on alpha to
substitute, whether or not there's a provides.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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.''

Attachment: pgpr2xLDjGlHi.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: