On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 09:55 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > > > "Ansgar" == Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> writes: > > Ansgar> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 08:33 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> Steve, you're presuming that we would not create a new soname > for > >> libc6 on architectures where we want a new time ABI. > > Ansgar> Isn't the libc ABI for some reason part of Debian's > Ansgar> architecture name? uclibc-linux-amd64, musl-linux-i386, > Ansgar> i386 are distict architectures after all. So an > Ansgar> incompatible newglibc-linux-i386 would be different from > Ansgar> i386 as well? > > Not if they are coinstallable. > As an example libc5 and libc6 were both on the i386 architecture.
Why wouldn't musl-linux-i386 be coinstallable with glibc-linux-i386? Debian's musl package (on amd64) is coinstallable with libc6; we just don't build anything[1] against alternative libraries. One practical problem is that you don't want to end up linking two different C libraries (or really: any core libraries). I don't really see much difference between libc6 vs libc7 or libc6 vs libmusl (besides applications that require glibc and might not work with musl, but that is a separate issue). This might also mean that musl-linux-i386 shouldn't be a different architecture than i386. If they are different, then maybe libstdc++6- libc6-linux-i386 and libc++-libc6-linux-i386 would need to be different architectures too? Ansgar [1]: Yes, very few exceptions might exist.
