Re: It is ok to have a hardcoded Depends: libc6-dev ?
On 6 Nov 1998, James Troup wrote:
> What exactly is the problem with glibc2-dev providing libc6-dev?
> (Apart from the fact that you find it aesthetically displeasing). The
> alpha people do it and it works for them.
There is not any problem with glibc2-dev providing libc6-dev.
[ As I said, we will probably do it in the next glibc2-dev package ].
I was just asking about other ways to achieve the same thing.
If there is none, ok, there is none, but then it would seem that the
shlibs mechanism does only solve 90% of the problem.
> [For that matter, why even change the name of such a core package?
> Seems gratuitous to me.]
libc6 is a Linux name and GNU/Hurd is not "Linux". glibc2 and glibc2-dev
are the logical names for these packages in the GNU operating system.
Since glibc2 will have an appropriate shlibs file, and glibc2-dev will
provide libc6-dev for those packages having a hardcoded dependency, we can
do it and there should not be side effects.
--
"dbbde9d15825471b42dd39b420f262d8" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: