Re: libc6_2.0.106-0.1_i386.deb is released
>>>>> Santiago Vila writes:
>> Wouldn't the right thing be to add a ``Replaces: glibc2'' line to
>> my package, rather than making the package names inconsistent with
>> the Linux versions?
SV> The package names have not to be consistent with Linux, because
SV> GNU/Hurd has nothing to do with Linux-the-kernel.
SV> The shlibs mechanism will make sure that packages compiled with
SV> glibc2 for the Hurd (either natively or by cross-compiling) will
SV> have the right "Depends: glibc2" in the control file.
Okay... I understand this.
SV> We already did this for glibc 2.0.4, and it worked, and I don't
SV> see any reason to change this. IMHO, we should have "glibc2" and
SV> not "libc6" under GNU/Hurd.
Please forgive my incessant stubborness, but I'm rather new to this
whole procedure. ;)
Since we're talking about names anyway, I just wanted to ask if
`glibc2' is the best name for the Hurd's C library package. I'm not
sure what the convention for arriving on that name is, or if it's just
an arbitrary one that looks good.
SV> Just remember to make glibc2-dev to Provide: libc6-dev, since
SV> there are still some packages having a hardcoded dependency on
Hmm... this is confusing to me. Why should have a separate libc
package name for the Hurd if we just have to add `Provides' lines
SV> [ Also, remember to change also the shlibs file accordingly so
SV> that it reads "glibc2 (>= 2.0.106)" ].
I'll look into this.
Gordon Matzigkeit <email@example.com> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Lovers of freedom, unite! \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
[Unfortunately, www.fig.org is broken. Please stay tuned for details.]