[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Poll: Python wishlist

Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Poll: Python wishlist "):
> bsb@uni-muenster.de said:
> > With ELF becoming the standard executable format, I don't want to go 
> > through the hassles of supporting loadable modules for a.out.
> Let's put the ELF libraries in public view so that we can issue packages that
> are only available in the ELF format. That would make the maintainers lives
> easier. It would cost users some virtual memory during the transition to ELF,
> but I don't think that's so bad. We need those maintainers to spend their time
> on ELF conversion and other packages.

Right.  We should use the 1.0 tree for this - that ought to be our
development tree now.

I think we should rename the elf-libc package to libc5 and put it in
the 1.0 tree forthwith.

When we have a version of `libc' (the old a.out libc 4) that doesn't
get in its way we should make elf-libc use the standard directories.

Oh - and we should separate the development libc (the stubs, include
files, and so forth) from the runtime shared images.

Ian Murdock writes ("Bug#1807: Packages file with debian-1.0 wrong"):
>    From: Erick Branderhorst <branderhorst@fgg.eur.nl>
>    Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 16:14:06 MET
>    The Packages file in /debian/private/project/debian-1.0/binary/ is
>    wrong. The recently added field filename: ... in this file is
>    containing wrong information on the location of the file. It says:
>    debian-0.93 where this should be debian-1.0 or is it intended to
>    show another location if the file pointed at is really different to
>    the file from the original debian-0.93 location. Filename: seems to
>    be causing trouble all ready.
> This is why it's still under private! :) I haven't had time to fix the
> scripts, etc.  As soon as I do, it'll be moved out of private and into
> public view.

Right, good :-).


Reply to: