Re: glibc 2.3.6-3
At Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:43:26 +0100,
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I have just uploaded glibc 2.3.6-2. It is now time to think to the next
> upload, glibc 2.3.6-3.
Gook work!
> Personally here is the things I would like to see in it:
>
> - Split of libc6 and libc6-dev into libraries and binaries. This is
> required as per policy, but become more important for multiarch support.
> But maybe there is a reason for having binaries and libraries in the
> same package?
It depends on the policy. You could split them. However, I wonder we
need to do so.
> - More architectures using the multiarch directories for the 64-bit
> version of the glibc. This will however depends on other packages
>
> - A policy for the debian/patches directory. This is currently a bit a
> mess (and I contributed to it) in this directory, except for the locale
> data which is separated. I think the information we need in the patch
> filename is:
> - a short part telling what the patch does
> - the architecture for which it applies
> - the upstream status (debian specific, in upstream BTS, fixed in
> CVS). For example xfree86 uses number to define that: 000 (patches from
> upstream or merged in upstream), 001-899 (patches that should be merged
> in upstream), 900-999 (patches that are specific to debian or were
> rejected by upstream).
I already tried your idea (numbering them), but finally the attempt
was failed. 10_cvs.diff is the example of such remains.
> Maybe some more information could be put in the filename. Don't hesitate
> to give ideas. Then we could put a README file containing the policy in
> this directory.
I seconded that the information should be always included in the
filename.
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: