[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:
> 
> > However, as read, this would make little or not sense as to why one cannot
> > (or even should not) use libc-dev instead of libc*-dev unless you need a
> > versioned dependancy - since all libc*-dev should Provide: libc-dev, and
> > there should be exactly one that applies to any given arch, there is no
> > "preference" that would make any sense for all arches.
> 
> 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.  You cannot substitute a different
> -dev package for libc6.1 on an alpha and get correct results.

What about erasing the dependency totally?

From the list of build-essential_7 :

BEGIN LIST OF PACKAGES
libc6-dev [!alpha !hurd-i386] | libc0.3-dev [hurd-i386] | libc6.1-dev [alpha] | libc-dev

Jesse

-- 
Jesus Climent | Unix System Admin | Helsinki, Finland.
web: www.hispalinux.es/~data/  |  pumuki.hispalinux.es
------------------------------------------------------
Please, encrypt mail sent to me:   GnuPG ID:  86946D69
FP: BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
------------------------------------------------------
Registered Linux user #66350 Debian 3.0 & Linux 2.4.20

It's sex! Sex is the game! Marriage is the penalty.
		--Andrew Wyke (Sleuth)

Attachment: pgp_hgIAqi7di.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: