Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.5.0
Severity: wishlist
Policy wants shared libraries to be in packages of names like libfoo6
for a libfoo.so.6. However this becomes confusing if the library name
ends in a number so that the soversion is separated with a hyphen from
the library name.
$ egrep
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:20:48AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> > statically.
>
> Which ones?
/usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a. It contains atexit() and a lot of
stat() functions. This has ca
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:35:30AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> > > statically.
> >
> > Which ones?
>
> nss modules come to mind.
You mean:
$ l
Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> > statically.
>
> Which ones?
nss modules come to mind.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothi
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means that the current GCC 2.95.x package is not conforming to
> the policy because it doesn't provide a shared version of libgcc.a,
It's fixed in GCC 3.0.
> and neither is libc6 because some parts of it can only be linked
> statically.
Which one
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:07:05 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in current policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibi
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:58:19 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in current policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibi
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:56:02 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in latest policy versions
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your re
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:51:14 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in policy 3.5.5.0
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibi
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:51:14 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed in policy 3.5.5.0
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibi
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:45:31 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:39:46 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Japanese translations
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibili
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:36:50 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line No longer relevant
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:16:47 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Packaging manual now incorporated into policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 51832 normal
Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information.
Severity set to `normal'.
> merge 55356 51832
Bug#51832: packaging-manual: Architecture setting: more information.
Bug#55356: packaging-manual: Please clarify mu
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 85815 85818
Bug#85815: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version
substvars
Bug#85818: packaging-manual: about dpkg:UpstreamVersion and dpkg:Version
substvars
Merged 85815 85818.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please con
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 34223 apt
Bug#34223: apt and packaging manual are in contradiction
Bug reassigned from package `packaging-manual' to `apt'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bug
reassign 34223 apt
thanks
When importing the packaging manual into the policy document, I left
out the chapter on interfaces to dselect; as Enrique said earlier in
this bug report:
> I think the "dselect methods" chapter doesn't belong in the packaging
> manual. It says nothing about how to make
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In section 11.2, it is mandated that every library provides a static
> > and a shared version. I don't think this is appropriate, as there
> > are programming languages whose shared library support is still
> > evolving.
>
> > The whole discussion in t
19 matches
Mail list logo
