Re: Multiple binaries => multiple packages ?
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 11:25:28AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 05:52:42PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > i386-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2.1 : for libc2.1
> > i386-pc-linux-gnulibc1 : for libc2.0
> > i386-pc-linux-gnulibc1-static : static 2.0
> > i686-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2.1 : 686-optimized for 2.1
> > i686-pc-linux-gnulibc1-static : 686-optimized static for 2.0
> >
> > Now, I did make an install package that would install the binaries
> > from the tarball that is put either in /tmp or $TMPDIR. My question is
> > - should I actually make 5 separate packages with different
> > dependencies or make one package with instructions to download the
> > correct tarball for their system. With the latter option, obviously if
> > someone with a slink system were to download the gnulibc2.1 version,
> > the program won't run. Based on this, it seems to me that I should
> > make 5 separate wrapper packages, and force dependencies
> > accordingly. Am I right?
>
> Well, potato is GLIBC 2.1. You don't really need to support anything else,
> so only two packages (686-optimised and non-optimised).
>
> Note that the gnulibc1 is NOT for libc2.0 as you have above -- it is
> for libc5. I think they should provide a glibc 2.0 (libc6.0) binary
> as well, but they don't. My slink system is running the libc5 binary
> because I don't want to upgrade to potato yet.
>
>
> Hamish
Hamish,
I just checked my binary. You are right. It's been compiled with
libc5. I'll ask the SETI folks to provide a glibc 2.0 binary. Thanks!
I haven't upgraded to potato either. Is there a machine that is
running potato that developers could use to test glibc 2.1 related
packages?
Gopal
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopal Narayanan Ph #: (413) 545 0925
Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory Fax#: (413) 545 4223
University of Massachusetts e-mail: gopal@fcrao1.phast.umass.edu
Amherst MA 01003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: