On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Joel Klecker wrote: > At 21:55 +0000 1999-01-21, James Troup wrote: > >If this is really a problem which needs addresses, libc6-dev (and > >equivalents) _must_ providing something other than libc-dev. > >(glibc-dev maybe?) Anything else is worse than ugly. > > OK, proposal is amended to use `glibc2-dev' as the dependency.
Why don't we just make the arches with weird libcs provide 'libc6-dev' in whatever their equivanlent package is? At least that way we advoid having to change the 90 or so packages already using libc6-dev. Even then that does not truely solve the problem James raised, the issue is of course that the -dev package for libraries contains libraries matched to a specific libc6 version. Someday some arch will go from libc6 to libc6.1 and there will be -dev pacakges that necessarily depend on one or the other during the transition. I guess, logically, a -dev package for a libc6 library should depend on libc6-dev and a -dev package for a libc5 library should depend on libc5-dev, source packages should depend on libc-dev as it hopefully irrelevent which version :> Jason
