[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libc6_2.0.106-0.1_i386.deb is released

> Keep in mind that it is very likely that somewhere in the future we
> will have to bump the libc soname for the Hurd, because the idea is to
> switch from GNU stdio to libio (which is used for Linux).  If the name
> is used for dpendencies, I think both glibc2 and libc6 are a bad
> choice for the Hurd.  The current soname is libc.so.0.2 which suggest
> that you should use something like libc0_2.

Is this name really used for dependencies on shared libararies?  I would
call that a design bug in Debian.  It means the packages have to be renamed
and all the specs changed when the soname changes, when it's a purely
binary change that could be handled transparently by dpkg without changing
the sources at all.  It should depend on a tag "libc.so.0.2" that the
glibc2 package would provide.  For things that depend on the -devel
package, it really makes no sense to make them depend on a name that
encodes the soname.

Reply to: