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

[Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@trick.fig.org>]

Hi!

>>>>> 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
 SV> libc6-dev.

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
anyway?

 SV> [ Also, remember to change also the shlibs file accordingly so
 SV> that it reads "glibc2 (>= 2.0.106)" ].

I'll look into this.

Thanks,

-- 
 Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ 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.]