> On Jun 20, Helmut Geyer wrote
> :
> : 1. Run time packages
> :
> : A package providing a shared library has to support both C library
> : packages, libc5 and libc6 based libraries. This must be done using
> : two Debian packages, each depending on the correct C library
> : package.
> : The package naming convention currently suggests to name these
> : packages as follows. Some packages (mostly from base) may use
> : locations in /lib.
> :
> : based on | package name | library location
> : --------------------------------------------
> : libc6 | libfoog [1]| /usr/lib/libfoo.so.<ver>
> : libc5 | libfoo | /usr/lib/libc5-compat/libfoo.so.<ver> [2]
>
> Why not simply include both libraries in one package.
Well, with the current setup, a new libc6 package can depend on libfoog,
and the old libc5 package depends on libfoo.
> I'd think, the
> overhead can be ignored. And package version in the future will have libc6
> only.
> But it must be ensured, that the package w/o libc5 compat can't be
> installed as long as there are packages depending on libc5. IMHO the
> dependency system should support it.
But that's much more difficult with your version: now all packages needing
"libfoo" just depend on "libfoo", and I seen no way to specify that
"libfoo_libc6version" cannot be installed when there are old packages
installed that depend on an old libfoo version (unless you want to
put a whole lot of Confilicts in the library, but that's really difficult
to get right). For the current setup, we get it for free.
> The libfoo/libfoog approach seems a little bit ugly. It's pure name
> space pollution ;-)
We already have that for libraries, when we upgrade to different sonames.
And in this case, although the soname doesn't change, the library is
not usable for the libc5 programmes.
> Ok, same with namespace pollution. Why not calling the ``normal''
> (libc6) dev package libfoo-dev and the ``old'' is libfoo-5dev or
> similar. Again, it can disappear somewhen in future.
That's
-the same amount of name-space pollution
-although it will look better in the future, it looks worse in the
past. Yes, I ageree that it's better to have things look bad in the
past and good in the future, but the point is: we cannot change the
past. And the simple fackt is, that the past (also called "bo" or "hamm")
used libfoo-dev for the names. So, there's no way we can change bo/hamm
any more.
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
