Bug#32229: marked as done ([PROPOSED] libc-dev dependency in non-libc -dev packages)
Your message dated Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:50:27 -0800
with message-id <E103Xc3-000623-00@cerberus.espy.org>
and subject line (no subject)
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Jan 1999 18:21:20 +0000
Received: (qmail 19441 invoked from network); 21 Jan 1999 18:21:20 -0000
Received: from cerberus.espy.org (mail@206.163.71.145)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 21 Jan 1999 18:21:20 -0000
Received: from ([206.163.71.152]) [206.163.71.152]
by cerberus.espy.org with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian GNU/Linux))
id 103Oj6-0000Oz-00; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:21:08 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Sender: jk@mail.espy.org
Message-Id: <v04103d0db2cd185a5177@[206.163.71.152]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:10:14 -0800
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
From: Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org>
Subject: [PROPOSED] libc-dev dependency in non-libc -dev packages
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Most -dev packages currently hard-code a dependency on `libc6-dev',
but for reasons of policy, not all architectures have that package
(various other names include `libc6.1-dev' and `libc0.2-dev', which
could expand to more if Debian ever branches into further systems
that glibc is ported to), the other packages currently must provide
`libc6-dev' to satisfy that dependency. I consider that ugly.
The packages also provide `libc-dev', but nothing in policy requires
its use, I would like policy to require that -dev packages besides
the -dev package provided by the glibc sources either recommend or
depend on `libc-dev'.
Problems:
libc5-dev does provide libc-dev as well, but that package is not
allowed to be installed on glibc2-based Debian systems, and
libc5-altdev does not provide libc-dev.
glibc should remain backward compatible for the forseeable future, so
the name 'libc-dev' should be safe for quite some time (and if that
ever changes, we will need to formulate a migration plan anyway).
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy) <URL:http://web.espy.org/>
<URL:mailto:jk@espy.org> <URL:mailto:espy@debian.org>
Debian GNU/Linux PowerPC -- <URL:http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/>
Reply to: