On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:26:06AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:54:34 -0700, > Joel Baker wrote: > > * Package name: libc12 > > * Version: 1.6+debian.1 > > * Upstream Author: The NetBSD Foundation > > * URL: http://www.netbsd.org/ > > * License: Varies per source file; see discussion on debian-legal > > I recommend "netbsd-libc" or "netbsd-libc12". > > There is already "libc6" (glibc). The name "libc12" is similar to > "libc5" or "libc6" which are GNU libc. It leads a bit confusion. I > don't intend to prioritize GNU libc, because GNU libc does not use > their source package name as "libc", but "glibc". > > Besides imagine if FreeBSD's libc or other BSD libc is ITP-ed. > Distinguishing their name apparently is a good idea, for example > "diet-libc". > > BTW, what does "12" of libc12 mean? I will be happy to name the binaries netbsd-libc12 when the current libc6 becomes gnu-libc6 or glibc6; certainly the source package name might change, but since there are exactly 0 platforms which will ever have both GNU libc and NetBSD libc (they are exclusive and must be separated by arch, since binaries depend on one or other other), it is simpler to have the binary packages named consistantly. FreeBSD's is libc4, though they are using GNU libc instead; the Hurd has libc0.2 as their package name. (Note that I would, in fact, be quite happy if all libc packages were more specific; until then, however, all known examples do in fact call the binary libc*, where * is the major version number, per Policy). -- Joel Baker fenton@debian.org
Attachment:
pgpQRHb2sX8lw.pgp
Description: PGP signature