Re: Bug#32229: PROPOSED] libc-dev dependency in non-libc -dev packages
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 21:55 +0000 1999-01-21, James Troup wrote:
> >If this is really a problem which needs addresses, libc6-dev (and
> >equivalents) _must_ providing something other than libc-dev.
> >(glibc-dev maybe?) Anything else is worse than ugly.
>
> OK, proposal is amended to use `glibc2-dev' as the dependency.
Why don't we just make the arches with weird libcs provide 'libc6-dev' in
whatever their equivanlent package is? At least that way we advoid having
to change the 90 or so packages already using libc6-dev.
Even then that does not truely solve the problem James raised, the issue
is of course that the -dev package for libraries contains libraries
matched to a specific libc6 version. Someday some arch will go from libc6
to libc6.1 and there will be -dev pacakges that necessarily depend on one
or the other during the transition.
I guess, logically, a -dev package for a libc6 library should depend on
libc6-dev and a -dev package for a libc5 library should depend on
libc5-dev, source packages should depend on libc-dev as it hopefully
irrelevent which version :>
Jason
Reply to: