Re: It is ok to have a hardcoded Depends: libc6-dev ?
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 11:50:01AM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
> > But I'm still in doubt about the need of a depends line at all.
>
> I'm not.
Santiago,
this is no big deal. We can easily make glib2-dev provide libc6-dev. This
solves this temporary problem.
> > so what is the purpose of libfoo-dev depending on libc6-dev?
>
> Because indirect dependencies are evil (see archives of this list).
>
> What exactly is the problem with glibc2-dev providing libc6-dev?
I don't see a problem with it - Santiago, how about you? Barring objections,
I'll change the control file.
> (Apart from the fact that you find it aesthetically displeasing). The
> alpha people do it and it works for them.
>
> [For that matter, why even change the name of such a core package?
> Seems gratuitous to me.]
Erhm, because the Hurd does use a different source package/version? Is there
a mechanism to handle arch specific sources? Currently, we use glibc 2.0.4.
The next version we can use will be 2.1.x, most likely we can then use the
same sources again.
Cheers,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: