Re: kernel headerts and libc6
[CC: to Brian since I'm not sure he's following debian-policy]
On 13 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ok, I give up. As Ian suggested, maybe we do need
> libc-kheaders package. The upstream version could be the same as the
> kernel version, and it shall be updated as libc6 development
> will. This way, there shall be less linkage with the kernel-*
> packages.
>
> I am tired of answering questions on -user.
>
> I can incorporate it inot kernel-package; it shall not be a
> target normally called, so people shall not suddenly start creating
> libc-kheaders packages.
>
> It shall just contain the kernel headers. Dale, please let me
> know if you want the headers dumped into a real /usr/include/linux
> directory, or what. I think we should make then real directories,
> just to prevent more uninformed questions.
>
> It means more work for all involved, but hey.
>
> Should this go into slink? Or can it still go into hamm? Maybe
> this may cause less confusion if it does go in released hamm.
I'd vote for putting it into hamm. The package isn't very complicated and
possible dependency problems could be easily fix in the time before the
freeze. Since the current setup WRT libc6 and kernel headers is an *FAQ*,
it wouldn't be very wise to put this into slink only.
Brian, is this ok with you?
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Don't know Perl? schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.perl.com http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: