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