Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: > Yes, there is no promise on our side to make sure the dependencies > are sane. I really don't think we should even make an attempt to > provide a sane upgrade path. I beg to differ. > The reasons are that we have not released anything yet, the userbase > is quite small, I consider Debian unstable an alpha release, and fully expect upgradability for the packages therein. Debian packages that would/could not make these guarantees are usually put into experimental, no? Keep in mind that there are already a number of people with CDs out there. > and we will definitely break the libc ABI completely anyway when we > do the switch from stdio to libio (and/or to pthreads). Then we will > have to recompile the whole archive, and any such clues become > obsolete. Couldn't we just change the package name? Every package using libc depends on libc0.2. > Another reason is that this is really a bug in the Hurd package, > and I have a dislike against work arounds for bugs in a package to > be in other, unrelated packages. If you use "Conflicts", that header is almost always a work around for other package's bugs. I'm content with your notice, BTW -- I just wanted the reasons. I've also filed a glibc bug, since it already has a (wrong) dependency on hurd. > I have a random translator, which I can include in the package. We just > need to find a way to get good randomness. If someone could make a port > of egd to the Hurd, which is started at bootstrap and copies good entropy > to /dev/random, this would be all that is needed. Shouldn't the egd port simply act as a translator? -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature