Re: libc soname conventions [was: libc6_2.0.106-0.1_i386.deb is released]
Hi!
>>>>> Roland McGrath writes:
>> I'm now using libc0.2 as the package name, which I agree is
>> correct.
RM> Really? Truly? I will defer to the wisdom of those with
RM> experience with debian, since I have none. But is it really the
RM> case that debian has no better provision for this for dealing
RM> with different versions and machine/os builds of the same
RM> package? That is a serious shortcoming.
Your points are well-taken.
The only reason I can think of for why ABIs are not treated as virtual
packages that others depend on, is that organizing the package
archives would require more thought. There would have to be
provisions for packages that have the same names but different sets of
dependencies.
The current system relies on the fact that the `architecture' field
completely different than any other kind of dependency. So, we have
to change the name of the package in order to get real flexibility in
how dependencies are handled.
This is common Debian practice... my e-mail was only intended as a
guideline of how we might apply this practice to the Debian GNU/Hurd
distribution. I raised this issue so that we don't find ourselves
backed into a corner of the package namespace later on, when we want
better integration between GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd.
Debian is also an evolving thing, and I believe that once we get far
enough down this road, more people will grasp the problem and want to
fix it. At that point dpkg's notion of architecture can be integrated
with the dependency system.
Thanks for your comments, and yes, I agree that we should try to see
if cloning or brain dumps of some sort can be applied to Mark
Kettenis. ;)
--
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.]
Reply to: