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

Re: glibc_2.3.6-6_i386.changes REJECTED

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> 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.)

He ment:

Package: libc6
Depends: libc-bin   [pull in libc-bin]

Package: libc-bin
Conflicts: libc6 (<< version from shlibs)
Replaces: libc6 (<< first split version)

This would make sure a matching libc6 and libc-bin package gets
installed as pair. But due to dpkgs long standing conflicts handling
bug this does not prevent a downgrade of libc6 to a version unsuitable
for libc-bin.


Reply to: