RE: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-17 Thread Yves Arrouye
\ > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > > > This is the correct way to do it. > > Doesn't this mean that you have to upgrade both packages if you need > to change the *.so.* files in a binary incompatible manner. Yes. > Ie. wouldn't it be better to h

RE: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-17 Thread Yves Arrouye
\ > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > > > This is the correct way to do it. > > Doesn't this mean that you have to upgrade both packages if you need > to change the *.so.* files in a binary incompatible manner. Yes. > Ie. wouldn't it be better to

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-14 Thread James Antill
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 01:57:40AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > > > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > > > > > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > > > > > This is the correct way to do it. > > > > D

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-14 Thread James Antill
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 01:57:40AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > > > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > > > > > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > > > > > This is the correct way to do it. > > > >

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-14 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 01:57:40AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > > > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > > > This is the correct way to do it. > > Doesn't this mean that you have to upgrade both packages if

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-14 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 01:57:40AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > > > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > > > This is the correct way to do it. > > Doesn't this mean that you have to upgrade both packages if

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-14 Thread James Antill
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote: > > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > This is the correct way to do it. Doesn't this mean that you have t

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-13 Thread James Antill
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote: > > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. > > This is the correct way to do it. Doesn't this mean that you have

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-13 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote: > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. This is the correct way to do it. > How does libc6 sidestep the issue? Or will any libc7 be declared as > conflicting badly

Re: Q. about the way libc6 is packaged (looking for inspiration)

2000-10-13 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Yves Arrouye wrote: > So I'm thinking about splitting into: > > libicu16: just the lib*.so.* > icu: the rest, depends on libicu16. This is the correct way to do it. > How does libc6 sidestep the issue? Or will any libc7 be declared as > conflicting badl