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

Re: Dependancies on libc



On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:23:57PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Please CC me on all replies, even though I am (finally) subscribed. It
> works better with my mail sorting setup.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Having run into a few packages, now, which have dependancies on specific
> > GNU libc versions (or rather, libc versions, when all that the packaging
> > system understands is libc == GNU libc), which compiled just fine under
> > the NetBSD libc, I come to the following conclusion:
> > 
> > We should request that a provision be made for desginating which libc is
> > required, from the developer/policy community.
> 
> This is not true; GNU libc is called libc6 rather than libc. So there is
> no conflict. Also, the source packages don't generally have dependencies
> on libc6, only the compiled binary ones (as makes sense for dynamically
> linked Linux executables).

And before that, it was called libc5. Every *other* package that has a number
used in such fashion considers the main name to be <X>, and <X># is just a
packaging convenience. Witness perl and perl5, perl5.6, etc.

Or do you really thing people won't scream, if *we* call the NetBSD libc
package just 'libc'? What about the FreeBSD port?

(Note: *most* of the source packages don't, no; but a few do, such as
gettext, the one which caused me to write the first email about this)

> By the way, in response to your question, I at least am an official Debian
> developer; are there any others on this project? (This is mainly a question
> out of curiosity rather than anything else.)
> 
> To all of you out there:
> 
> By the way, I will be at the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City from Jan
> 30 through Feb 1, in the Debian booth. Come by and maybe we can talk
> about Debian GNU/NetBSD as well as Debian GNU/Linux!

Stuck in Colorado, myself. So unless they hold one in Denver...

> Also, I have made some progress regarding packaging useful programs such
> as sudo (and getting it to work, of course), gettext, sharutils (with nls
> disabled only), and libtool. I have been having problems getting fakeroot
> working, but I will post about those separately. Most of the problems I have
> been able to overcome, but I need a bit of advice on one of them. Consider
> this my "hi, count me in!" post.

*scratches head*

gettext and libtool compiled without any apparent problems. Did I miss
something? (and thus, do I need to pull the packages out of the APT binary
area?)
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/



Reply to: