Re: Depencencies of gcc on glibc/eglibc and libc6-i386
Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> writes:
> On 29.08.2009 18:38, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> I would like to better understand the depencencies between the various
>> gcc packages and libc6{,-i386}, in particular as they relate to the
>> transition to /lib32.
>>
>> In debian/rules.conf we have:
>>
>> libc_ver := 2.5
>> ifneq (,$(findstring gnat,$(PKGSOURCE)))
>> libc_ver := 2.9-21
>> endif
>
> [...]
>> How about unifying all the version numbers to 2.9-22?
>
> I don't see why the b-d is necessary for the gcc build; it's an
> upgrade scenario only, and the buildd's install multilib related
> packages from scratch for each build. I'd like to keep it at 2.5, so
> that people can build the package on older releases as well.
>
> I think that Aurelian did argue having the conflicts in the binary
> packages is enough.
But in a machine with glibc 2.5 and libc6-i386 2.5 that builds gcc
produces binary packages that are uninstallable on the same machine
because they conflict with glibc (<< 2.9-22). Is that intentional? To
me it seems to break the Law of Least Astonishment; if I build on a
machine, the least I can reasonably expect is to be able to install on
that same machine (unless of course I'm cross-compiling, which is not
our case).
PS. Have a nice vacation if that's why you're away.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Reply to: