Re: Dependencies of libraries libc5-libc6 libraries
On Thu, Nov 27, 1997 at 03:07:02PM +0800, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Having some arguments with someone about dependencies of libraries,
> I've posted here to have this sorted out.
>
> Assume you have:
> libfoo libc5 compatibility library
> libfoo-altdev libc5 compatibility development package
> libfoog libc6 library
> libfoog-dev libc6 development.
>
> Obviously you have:
> libfoo-altdev depends on libfoo
> libfoog-dev depends on libfoog
> (not talking about external dependencies like on libc6, etc...)
>
> After some discussions a few months ago on debian-devel (or -policy),
> some people (I remember David Engel and myself) argued that for some
> packages you might also want:
> libfoo depends on libfoog
Yes.
> libfoo-altdev depends on libfoog-dev
I disagreed with this last one. The reason is that it prevents the
user from installing another "libfoog-dev" (e.g. libfoo2g-dev) without
also removing libfoo-altdev.
> Rationale:
>
> 1) The documentation for foo is there only once in the libfoog
> package
> and libfoo has a symlink in /usr/doc to libfoog. Additional
> support files (like /usr/lib/tclxxx for David's tcl packages)
> are there only once in the libfoog package.
>
> 2) The manpages for the development package are also included only
> once in the distribution, in the libfoog package.
>
> 3) One might argue that we could create additional package. This
> would mean creating two extra packages: libfoo-support for the
> common runtime files, and libfoo-dev-support for the common
> devel files (manpages, etc...). I don't think adding two extra
> packages per library is worth, we already just added two:
> bo: 2 packages per library
> current hamm: 4 packages per library
> hamm with this proposal: 6 packages per library
Agreed.
> 4) The libfoo and libfoo-altdev are *compatibility* package during
> the libc5->libc6 transition. Hopefully the final hamm will have
> all the old libc5 packages converted to libc6. This means that
> the libfoo and libfoo-altdev are unlikely to be installed on a
> hamm system.
> Even if they are installed on a hamm system, it's likely that
> their libc6 counterparts are already there, so these additional
> depencies are just a minor annoyance.
Right. All of the libfoo-altdev packages should be obsoleted (and
possibly the libfoo packages too) in whatever comes after hamm.
> Objections, support, welcome.
> Could we have this carved in stone somewhere if it's approved ?
> Sorry to dig out this again.
>
> Phil.
David
--
David Engel ODS Networks
david@sw.ods.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
Reply to: