Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)
Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 01:57:40AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > > > So I'm thinking about splitting into:
> > > >
> > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.*
> > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16.
> > >
> > > This is the correct way to do it.
> >
> > Doesn't this mean that you have to upgrade both packages if you need
> > to change the *.so.* files in a binary incompatible manner.
>
> Even if it was only one package you'd have to upgrade it.
True.
[snip ...]
> > Ie. wouldn't it be better to have something like...
> >
> > libicu: virtual package, requires icu and libicu16
> >
> > ...or am I missing something.
>
> That's not how the virtual packages are used usually... note also that users
> don't know much about virtual packages, since they don't see them in package
> selection programs.
Well I didn't really like dselect, so I've only really used gnome-apt
and that shows the virtual packages.
I'm also probably abusing the name virtual package, as I meant a
package which just requires other packages (maybe has a README.debian
in /usr/share/doc but still...).
--
James Antill -- james@and.org
"If we can't keep this sort of thing out of the kernel, we might as well
pack it up and go run Solaris." -- Larry McVoy.
Reply to: