On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 22:38 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> - On all architectures, the package "uclibc0.9.30rc3" contains all
> run-time libraries in a single package.
Do we need the full version string within the package name? Is the ABI
that unstable? Is it likely to stabilise? I don't fancy all those binary
rebuilds. Or is that actually "uclibc_0.9.30rc3" or uclibc0? uclibc0.9
might be OK.
^^^
> - On 64-bit architectures that have a -m32 variant (amd64 only, I think),
> "uclibc32-0.9.30rc3" provides a 32-bit build, and "lib32uclibc-dev"
> provides the static libraries and .so symlink for that.
That forces every reverse depends to update to the latest uclibc every
time a new upload is made, it doesn't allow for migrations where
lib32uclibc0.9-dev sits alongside lib32uclibc0.10-dev. glibc transitions
are painful and protracted.
> For the "emdebian" vendor:
>
> - On all architectures, "libc0.9.30rc3uc" provides libc, "libm0.9.30rc3uc"
> contains libm, and so on.
> - 32/64 bit variant builds are named "lib32c0.9.30rc3uc" and
> "lib64c0.9.30rc3uc", respectively
libc0.9uc ? Is that ABI really going to change that much between rc3 and
rc4 or between 0.9.30* and 0.9.31 ?
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part