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

Re: glibc_2.3.6-6_i386.changes REJECTED

Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 12:09, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 11:05, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > > I'm assuming libc6 depends on libc-bin and libc-bin depends on
> > > libc6 here. The former is needed to always pull in libc-bin on
> > > upgrades and the later is needed to ensure the minimum version
> > > requirements as sepcified in libc6.shlibs. We don't want a new
> > > libc-bin with a too old libc6.
> >
> > riiiiight, but that makes a nasty circular dependency I thought we
> > should avoid at any rate ? Shouldn't libc-bin rather conflicts with
> > bad version of the libc ?
> No.  Having libc-bin conflict with libc doesn't help you make sure
> libc-bin is pulled into the system, which is what you need.  (There
> are no "bad versions" of libc here; there are versions that need
> libc-bin, and there are versions that don't, and you need some way to
> pull libc-bin in for those versions that do need it.)

for that problem, what needs libc6 is a depends upon libc-bin. That 
dependency *has* to stay, and I've never suggested to remove it ;)

I was discussing the libc-bin => libc6 dependency, that creates a 
dependency loop. Goswin argued this was needed to ensure requirements 
in shlibs. I was proposing to replace that dependency with a conflict 
with inferior libc6, which breaks the circular dependency, and provides 
the same properties wrt shlibs requirements.

I've also pondered about putting ldconfig+ldd in a separate package, 
that wouldn't depend upon libc6, since it only holds a script (ldd) and 
a static binary. but that wouldn't solve the libc6 <=> libc-bin 
dependency loop anyway.

That reminds me a lot of the kdelibs4/kdelibs4-bin problem we had in the 
KDE team, that had no good answer.
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpBANW9MV0Ck.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: