Re: Dependencies of libraries libc5-libc6 libraries

[James Troup <J.J.Troup@comp.brad.ac.uk>]

[ Stupid Cc: removed, please don't put it back ]

Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org> writes:

>   1) The documentation for foo is there only once in the libfoog
>      package and libfoo has a symlink in /usr/doc to libfoog.

/usr/doc/libpng0 isn't a symlink to libpng0g, it's an empty directory.

If the documentation is substantial, why not have a libfoo-doc?  (The
documentation for libpng0g is 32k).  Also you *can't* have a symlink
from libfoo -> libfoog, that violates policy 5.6.  

> 3) One might argue that we could create additional package. This
>    would mean creating two extra packages: libfoo-support for the
>    common runtime files,

[...]

I have no problem where the dependency is real (i.e. depending on
libfoog for binaries or conffiles), I've done this for pwdb (there is
a conffile needed by libpwdb0 and libpwdb0g, it makes no sense to make
duplicate copies of it).

>   4) The libfoo and libfoo-altdev are *compatibility* package during
>      the libc5->libc6 transition.

[...]

This is irrelevant and in no way a justification of an artificial
dependency.

-- 
James