Hi! >>>>> Santiago Vila writes:
>> Wouldn't the right thing be to add a ``Replaces: glibc2'' line to >> my package, rather than making the package names inconsistent with >> the Linux versions? SV> The package names have not to be consistent with Linux, because SV> GNU/Hurd has nothing to do with Linux-the-kernel. SV> The shlibs mechanism will make sure that packages compiled with SV> glibc2 for the Hurd (either natively or by cross-compiling) will SV> have the right "Depends: glibc2" in the control file. Okay... I understand this. SV> We already did this for glibc 2.0.4, and it worked, and I don't SV> see any reason to change this. IMHO, we should have "glibc2" and SV> not "libc6" under GNU/Hurd. Please forgive my incessant stubborness, but I'm rather new to this whole procedure. ;) Since we're talking about names anyway, I just wanted to ask if `glibc2' is the best name for the Hurd's C library package. I'm not sure what the convention for arriving on that name is, or if it's just an arbitrary one that looks good. SV> Just remember to make glibc2-dev to Provide: libc6-dev, since SV> there are still some packages having a hardcoded dependency on SV> libc6-dev. Hmm... this is confusing to me. Why should have a separate libc package name for the Hurd if we just have to add `Provides' lines anyway? SV> [ Also, remember to change also the shlibs file accordingly so SV> that it reads "glibc2 (>= 2.0.106)" ]. I'll look into this. Thanks, -- Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Lovers of freedom, unite! \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/) [Unfortunately, www.fig.org is broken. Please stay tuned for details.]
