Re: Poll: Python wishlist
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Poll: Python wishlist "):
> email@example.com 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 :-).