Re: JOEL BAKER, STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO DEPEND ON LIBC-DEV *INSTEAD* OF LIBC6-DEV
Joel a écrit :
> Er. If that's true, then why have a libc-dev virtual package at all?
> Granted, depending on:
> libc6-dev | libc6.1-dev | libc0.2-dev | libc12-dev | libc4-dev
it's libc0.3-dev on Debian GNU/Hurd now, no more 0.2 ;)
> would certainly work (for all variants of libc I'm aware of right now,
> anyway) - but would be a bit fugly.
> If folks really aren't supposed to use libc-dev to mean 'the proper libc
> for the current arch', maybe a substvar would resolve this?
Else I totally agree with you, since libc-dev is only provided by one
package on every arch, I don't see where problems can be, and it's the
most clean way to do it IMHO (rather than a long list of or'ed real
package names)
--
Gael Le Mignot "Kilobug" - kilobug@freesurf.fr - http://kilobug.free.fr
GSM : 06.71.47.18.22 (in France) ICQ UIN : 7299959
Fingerprint : 1F2C 9804 7505 79DF 95E6 7323 B66B F67B 7103 C5DA
Member of HurdFr: http://hurdfr.org - The GNU Hurd: http://hurd.gnu.org
Reply to: