On 2015-09-23 14:21, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Nikolaus,
>
> Le jeudi, 17 septembre 2015, 09.27:56 Nikolaus Rath a écrit :
> > On Sep 17 2015, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> wrote:
> > > Le jeudi, 17 septembre 2015, 08.46:24 Nikolaus Rath a écrit :
> > >> I don't know about formal LSB compatibility, but there are several
> > >> proprietary applications that require nothing but the
> > >> /{lib,lib64}/ld-lsb.so* symlinks to work properly under Debian. So
> > >> it would be great if they could be preserved.
> > >
> > > FYI, this used to be in lsb-core, and is to be found in the package
> > > VCS history.
> > >
> > > I will not work towards this, but feel free to adopt the package and
> > > upload an updated version.
> >
> > I'm only a DM and having to search for a fresh sponsor for every
> > upload is very frustrating. Would you be generally available to
> > sponsor my uploads (ideallyl until you feel comfortable to give me
> > upload privileges)?
>
> Given that I'm (so far) convinced that _not_ providing the lsb packages
> at all is the correct thing to do for Debian, I'd prefer if another DD
> could sponsor any upload of src:lsb re-introducing these (and drop me
> from Uploaders).
>
> That said, as for the technical issue at hand, iff these symlinks [0]
> are useful to make Debian relevant for (some) non-free software out
> there, couldn't they be handled directly by libc6 on the various
> architectures ?
>
> src:eglibc maintainers: opinions ?I am personally not very thrilled about that idea, because I don't think the LSB compatibility should be handled at each package level, even if it looks technically easier to do that. That said if someone is motivated to provide a patch and maintain that part in the future, I guess we can accept that. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
